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

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs Cliff and Betsy Lang filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company of New York, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law § 349. The plaintiffs claimed they were overcharged for title insurance during a mortgage refinancing, as they did not receive a discounted rate they believed they were entitled to under state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the RESPA claim, arguing that RESPA § 8(b) does not provide a private right of action for 'overcharges'. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, finding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits fees for unperformed services or splits, not simply excessive charges. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

RESPATitle InsuranceMortgage RefinancingOvercharge ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal CourtState LawSupplemental JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPleading Standards
References
31
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moll v. US Life Title Insurance Co. of New York

The case involves plaintiffs Moll, Elser, McGuire, and Harlow suing US Life Title Insurance Company of New York, asserting claims under RESPA, RICO, and state laws. Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation, failure to disclose kickbacks to attorneys, and aiding and abetting fraud related to title insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to adequately allege mail fraud or commercial bribery as predicate acts for RICO claims, citing insufficient evidence of misrepresentation, a duty to disclose, substantial assistance in fraud, or economic harm due to non-negotiable premiums. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted, leave to replead was denied, and pendent state law claims were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActRESPA ActMail FraudCommercial BriberyFraud AllegationsMotion to DismissPendent State ClaimsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Title Insurance
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02617
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over cash proceeds from the demutualization of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). Petitioner, Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP, purchased the professional liability insurance policy and paid all associated premiums. Respondent, Rachel S. Title, M.D., was the named insured but did not contribute to the policy costs. The Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds, including accrued interest, and directed the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, to enter judgment accordingly. The decision affirmed that awarding the proceeds to the respondent would constitute unjust enrichment, as she did not pay for the policy or bargain for the demutualization benefits.

Demutualization proceedsProfessional liability insuranceUnjust enrichmentInsurance policyPremium paymentsAppellate DivisionCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marino v. Perna

Claimant Marino sued defendant Perna for breach of warranty of title after purchasing a stolen automobile, which led to his son's arrest and the car's seizure. Perna had bought the car from third-party defendant Marshal Locascio at a traffic auction. The court found that Locascio, as a Marshal, was exempt from implied warranty of title under UCC 2-312, and the action against him was also barred by a one-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court ruled in favor of Marino against Perna for breach of warranty of title, awarding $1,200 for the car's value, but denying consequential damages for legal fees due to lack of foreseeability on Perna's part.

breach of warrantywarranty of titlestolen vehicleUniform Commercial CodeStatute of LimitationsMarshal salepublic auctionconsequential damagesautomobile saleimplied warranty
References
14
Case No. ADJ1862937 (VNO 0503723)
Regular
May 07, 2012

TRAVIS GRANT vs. SIERRACIN CORPORATION (PPG INDUSTRIES), administered by AVIZENT RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to revive a December 9, 2008 dismissal order, arguing it was valid under Appeals Board Rule 10852. However, the Board found this dismissal order void *ab initio* because it was issued without the required notice of intention to dismiss and opportunity to be heard, as mandated by CCR Title 8, Section 10582. Therefore, the prior finding that the applicant's claim had not been dismissed was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactOrder of DismissalRule 10852Rule 10582Lack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissVoid Ab InitioAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ1746651 (LBO 0396330)
Regular
Aug 10, 2010

NORMA RAMIREZ vs. GIANT DOLLAR, FIRST COMP OMAHA

The Appeals Board granted removal and amended the WCJ's order, requiring the defendant to produce *all* medical reports in their possession, not just those they intend to rely upon, per CCR title 8, section 10608. The Board struck the provision requiring the lien claimant to prove market rates for interpreters, finding it was not properly before the WCJ and the law already outlines this burden. The Board denied the lien claimant's request to disqualify the WCJ, finding no evidence of bias despite the lien claimant's disagreement with the WCJ's rulings and actions. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalLien claimantMedical reportsMarket rateInterpreter servicesBiasDisqualificationWCJCode of Regulations
References
15
Case No. ADJ6645567
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

DARLENE BERKE vs. BLOOMINGDALES, MACYS CORPORATE SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over the disqualification of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Monosson, due to alleged ex parte communication initiated by the doctor regarding deposition fees. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying finding was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the disqualification, ruling that Dr. Monosson was not disqualified. The Board emphasized that Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and CCR, Title 8, Section 35(k) protect the aggrieved party's election rights, and here, the applicant, the aggrieved party, did not seek a new QME.

Panel Qualified Medical EvaluatorDisqualificationEx Parte CommunicationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.3Aggrieved PartyMedical ReportsDeposition FeesPrepayment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,569 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