CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. City School District

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from June 29, 1983, which found a continuing causally related moderate disability stemming from a January 20, 1976 accident. The appeal focused on whether substantial evidence supported the Board's determination, considering intervening injuries and the claimant's severe obesity as contributing factors. The record included conflicting medical opinions, but experts agreed obesity contributed to the original injury and continuing disability. The Board emphasized the testimony of the claimant’s attending orthopedist, who related the present condition to the 1976 incident. The court, finding substantial evidence in the record, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationDisabilityCausationMedical TestimonyObesityThoraco-lumbar sprainAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedistPrior Injury
References
2
Case No. 91 B 10891
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Financial News Network Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses motions by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, counsel for the debtor (Financial News Network, FNN) and the equipment lessors committee respectively, seeking payment of prepetition fees in FNN's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Gibson, Dunn sought payment through the assumption of an employment agreement at a premium rate, while Kramer, Levin sought compensation under Section 503(b) for substantial contribution. The court denied Gibson, Dunn's motion, ruling that professional compensation is governed by Sections 327-330 of the Bankruptcy Code, not Section 365, and rejected the "doctrine of necessity" in this context. Kramer, Levin's motion for prepetition fees was also denied, without prejudice, as the court deemed the determination of "substantial contribution" premature and best addressed at the conclusion of the case.

Chapter 11Bankruptcy LawPrepetition FeesCounsel FeesExecutory ContractProfessional CompensationDoctrine of NecessitySubstantial ContributionDebtor-in-possessionBankruptcy Code Section 365
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 1986

Claim of Fischer v. Princess Ribbon Corp.

The Special Disability Fund appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which found the employer and its insurance carrier eligible for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) for death benefits paid to the claimant’s widow and minor child. The Fund argued that the employer lacked knowledge of the claimant's preexisting permanent physical impairment, a requirement for reimbursement, and also contested the necessity for an 'informed decision' by the employer. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that the employer's secretary/treasurer had knowledge and a good-faith belief in the impairment’s permanency. Additionally, the Fund contended that the Board failed to address the contribution of the preexisting impairment to the claimant's death and that the record lacked supporting evidence for such a finding. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board had addressed the contribution issue and that substantial evidence in the record supported its conclusion.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPreexisting Permanent Physical ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeWorkers' Compensation Law § 15 (8)Death BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceRetroactive Effect of Amendment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciascia v. Rochdale Village, Inc.

The Trustees of the Special and Superior Officers Benevolent Association Defined Contribution Fund (Plaintiffs) sued Rochdale Village, Inc. (Defendant) for allegedly failing to make required contributions to the fund. The Plaintiffs' claims were brought under Section 301 of the LMRA and Sections 515 and 502(a)(3) of ERISA. The Defendant argued that its obligation was contingent on an unsatisfied condition precedent and that the contributions would be illegal under LMRA Section 302. The Court found the Memorandum of Agreement created an unambiguous obligation for the Defendant to contribute, and the SSOBA Fund did not violate LMRA Section 302. Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the Defendant's motion.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDefined Contribution PlanPension FundSummary JudgmentCondition PrecedentMultiemployer PlanTrust FundEmployer Contributions
References
50
Case No. ADJ8222803
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

Terry Lasko vs. Entertainment Partners, AIG, Cast & Crew, Zurich North America, Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding contribution between two employers, Entertainment Partners and Cast & Crew. The WCAB modified the award, ordering Cast & Crew to contribute to future medical care for the applicant's left shoulder, finding substantial evidence of industrial injury. However, the WCAB affirmed the arbitrator's denial of Cast & Crew's contribution for temporary disability and future medical care for GERD, constipation, and high blood pressure due to insufficient evidence of industrial causation for those conditions. One commissioner dissented, arguing for Cast & Crew's contribution to future medical care for the internal conditions.

Cumulative TraumaContribution PetitionLabor Code Section 5500.5Compromise and ReleaseFuture Medical CareApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceNon-Industrial InjuryIndustrial Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snodgrass v. Snodgrass

This document is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge GARY R. WADE regarding the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-4-121(b)(1)(B) concerning marital and separate property in divorce cases. Judge Wade concurs with the majority that Mr. Snodgrass's 401(k) was not transmuted and that premarital contributions are separate property. However, he dissents from the majority's conclusion that the increase in value of these premarital contributions should be classified as marital property. He argues that the statutory phrase 'accrued during the period of the marriage' refers to the time the retirement benefit right is earned or acquired, not its subsequent appreciation. Citing prior precedents like Cohen v. Cohen and Langschmidt v. Langschmidt, Judge Wade asserts that premarital contributions and their appreciation should remain separate property unless clear evidence of commingling or substantial spousal contribution to their preservation and appreciation is presented, thus advocating for a remand to address these factors.

Marital PropertySeparate PropertyRetirement Benefits401(k) AccountsStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawDivorceEquitable DivisionComminglingSubstantial Contribution
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,834 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational