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 the Estate of Panek

Theodore (Ted) Panek's will, which bequeathed a significant portion of his estate to the proponent, was challenged by eight objectants on grounds of undue influence. A jury in Surrogate’s Court found that while Ted had testamentary capacity, he was subjected to undue influence by the proponent, leading to the denial of probate. On appeal, the court affirmed the Surrogate’s decree. The appellate court found ample circumstantial evidence to support the jury's finding, noting the proponent's financial motive, her control over Ted's environment and finances, his fragile health, and her active efforts to isolate him and pressure him into making the will against his prior resistance.

Will ContestUndue InfluenceTestamentary CapacityProbate LawEstate AdministrationAppellate ReviewSurrogate's CourtCircumstantial EvidenceFiduciary RelationshipElder Abuse
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

In Re the Estate of Cameron

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tioga County concerning the probate of William G. Cameron's will. The decedent, while hospitalized, executed a will leaving his estate to his wife, the petitioner. One of his sons, the respondent, filed objections, alleging the will was not duly executed, decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner established a prima facie case for probate and the respondent failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding due execution, testamentary capacity, fraud, or undue influence.

Will ProbateTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceFraudSummary JudgmentAppealSurrogate's CourtAttesting WitnessesDue ExecutionDecedent's Estate
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of DelGatto

Christopher Fasulo, administrator c.t.a. of Pauline DelGatto’s estate, appealed a Surrogate’s Court decree in Kings County, which, upon a jury verdict, favored Nora Bradley regarding the title to real property. The decedent, Pauline DelGatto, had executed a trust document and deed conveying her house to Nora Bradley just weeks before her death, with Bradley as trustee and beneficiary. Fasulo alleged the decedent lacked mental capacity and was subjected to undue influence. The jury found that Fasulo failed to sustain his burden of proof on both claims. The appellate court affirmed the decree, ruling that the petitioner did not meet the burden of proof for lack of mental competence or undue influence, especially since the transaction was supervised by an attorney and the circumstances were explained.

Estate lawreal propertyundue influencemental capacityburden of proofjury verdicttrust instrumentdeedattorney-client privilegeSCPA 2103
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Alberts

This case concerns an appeal from a Surrogate's Court decree admitting a will to probate. The decedent, at 94, willed her property to Jean Shambo, a former social service worker and nominated executrix. The decedent's brother and niece objected, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing discrepancies in property ownership and a safe deposit box. The jury found in favor of Shambo, determining the decedent possessed testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced. The Appellate Division affirmed the decree, finding no grounds to overturn the jury's decision, particularly regarding the decedent's understanding of her property, which was deemed a proper jury question.

ProbateWill ContestTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSurrogate's CourtProperty DispositionExecutrix
References
2
Case No. ADJ2645182
Regular
Jun 27, 2017

JENNIFER CARLSON-WELLER vs. SILVER'S AT THE WHARF, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise & Release, asserting a change of mind and desire for continued medical treatment. The Board dismissed the petition because the applicant failed to present evidence of good cause, such as mutual mistake, duress, fraud, or undue influence, to set aside the agreement. The Board recommended the WCJ treat the petition as a motion to set aside, requiring a hearing for the applicant to present supporting evidence. Any decision on that motion would then be subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCJStipulationsAwardMedical TreatmentGood CauseMutual Mistake of FactDuress
References
6
Case No. ADJ3720571 (SFO 0503340)
Regular
Dec 09, 2011

SOON K. LEE vs. LYTTON GARDENS SENIOR COMMUNITY, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order approving a Compromise and Release agreement. The applicant sought reconsideration, essentially asking to set aside the settlement. However, the Board found the applicant had not established grounds like fraud, mutual mistake, duress, or undue influence. The settlement was deemed reasonable and adequate after extensive discussions and review of medical reports. Applicant's concerns were addressed by providing a letter confirming an injury, which led to her satisfaction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAdministrative Law JudgeWCJPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Denying ReconsiderationSpecial Needs TrustMedi-Cal LienEDD Lien
References
1
Case No. ADJ2453878
Regular
Mar 02, 2017

SEAN COLGAN vs. NO VACANCY TRANSPORT, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denied reconsideration of a settlement. The applicant sought to set aside the settlement, alleging a mistake of fact regarding the inclusion of a serious and willful misconduct claim. The Board found that any misunderstanding by the applicant was a unilateral mistake, not sufficient to rescind the agreement without a showing of fraud, mutual mistake, duress, or undue influence. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the defendant's intent to settle the claim was given great weight and not overturned.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedSettlementGood CauseFraudMutual Mistake of FactDuressUndue InfluenceUnilateral MistakeSerious and Willful Misconduct
References
6
Case No. ADJ11061012
Regular
Aug 28, 2019

MARACHELLE JACKSON vs. DOOR TO HOPE, LWP CLAIMS

Applicant sought reconsideration of an order approving a $95,000 compromise and release, claiming she was pressured into signing due to a mental health crisis and misinformation. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely, noting the lack of proof of service for the original order. However, the Board remanded the case to the WCJ to determine if the applicant's allegations constitute good cause to set aside the compromise and release. This involves evaluating whether the settlement was secured by fraud, mistake, duress, or undue influence, rendering it inequitable.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCABAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuriesNeck InjuriesWrist InjuriesHand InjuriesArm InjuriesHead Injuries
References
13
Case No. ADJ8448254, ADJ8448256
Regular
Feb 18, 2014

MARTIZA PENALOZA vs. CITY OF HOPE, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an Order Approving a Compromise and Release Agreement. The applicant sought to set aside the settlement, claiming the $\$25,000$ was inadequate and she was misled about her options. The Board found no evidence of mistake, fraud, duress, or undue influence, noting the applicant's own initials on the agreement and her failure to exercise due diligence in understanding the settlement terms or her options. The Board concluded the settlement amount was reasonable given the Agreed Medical Examiner's findings and the applicant's occupation and age.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerPost-termination claimCumulative traumaPsyche claimDuressUndue influenceMutual mistake
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 260 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