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 Pavilion Place Associates

The case concerns a motion to transfer the Chapter 11 bankruptcy venue of Pavilion Place Associates, a Connecticut limited partnership, from the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. The debtor's sole asset is a shopping center in Roseville, Minnesota. While the debtor's principal place of business, managerial decisions, and financial planning are in New York, the motion was brought by the Trustees of the Central Pension Fund, who are secured creditors. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Tina L. Brozman, acknowledged that venue was proper in New York. However, considering factors like the location of the assets, the proximity of the majority of creditors to Minnesota, and the need for economic and efficient administration of the estate, the court granted the motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota. The decision emphasized that improved real estate cases are often better administered in the district where the property is located.

Venue TransferBankruptcy Chapter 11Principal Place of BusinessInterest of JusticeConvenience of PartiesSingle Asset Real EstateShopping CenterSecured DebtUnsecured CreditorsJudicial Discretion
References
18
Case No. ADJ6960749
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

AMALIA AGUILAR vs. PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL, ST, JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, THE HARTFORD, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a dispute over venue. The defendant timely objected to the applicant's initial filing venue, which was the attorney's principal place of business. The law mandates that if venue is based on the attorney's location and an objection is raised, venue must then be established in the county of the employee's residence or the injury site. Since the applicant resides in and was injured in Sonoma County, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The Board rescinded a prior order that had set aside a change of venue and formally transferred the case to the Santa Rosa district office.

EAMSPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside Order of Change of VenueWCJPWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedObjection to VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5WCAB Rule 10410Timeliness of Objection
References
4
Case No. ADJ8962530
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

Angelina Campos vs. INTEGRATED HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who initially filed in Santa Barbara but was rerouted to Oxnard and then San Luis Obispo. The applicant, now represented, sought to transfer venue back to Santa Barbara, arguing it was the proper location due to her residence, attorney's office, and original filing intent. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and ordered the venue transferred to Santa Barbara, finding it a valid district office with full services. The decision emphasizes that venue is mandatory in the county of residence or attorney's principal place of business if a district office exists there.

WCABPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Pro PerSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSanta Barbara District OfficeOxnard District OfficeApplication for Adjudication of ClaimCumulative Injury
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2003

Reger v. Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc.

Conrad G. Reger, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while applying caulking to a roof at a restaurant operated by Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc. on premises leased from Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. Plaintiffs commenced an action for damages, asserting claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a factual issue regarding whether Reger was involved in roof repair. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because Reger was not engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition, and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of evidence of defendants' supervision and control. The appellate court affirmed the order without costs.

Ladder FallSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Repair AccidentUnsecured LadderLabor Law ClaimsPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03790
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Hamling

Jerry Ray Hamling, an attorney admitted in New York in 2015, pleaded guilty in June 2020 to falsifying business records in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions directing his payroll processing company, Affinity Human Resources, LLC, to treat one of a construction client's companies as separate, leading to knowing omissions in payroll records. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose discipline, citing the conviction as a "serious crime." The Court concurred, finding the conviction, which included intent to defraud, qualified as a serious crime under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Weighing mitigating factors like a clean disciplinary record against aggravating factors such as illegal conduct despite substantial legal experience, the Court ordered a one-year suspension from the practice of law to safeguard the public and uphold professional integrity.

Attorney MisconductFalsifying Business RecordsSerious CrimeProfessional DisciplineSuspension of AttorneyPayroll FraudIntent to DefraudAppellate DivisionJudiciary Law 90Disciplinary Proceedings
References
5
Case No. ADJ4280040 (VNO 0557524)
Regular
Jun 09, 2010

CARLOS GUZMAN vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a supplemental attorney's fee award for applicant's counsel. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review and remanded for attorney's fees and costs. While the applicant's attorney requested $2100 based on six hours at $350/hour, the Board awarded $1500 based on six hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's recent admission to the bar and lack of specialization. Costs were not awarded as they were not requested.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code §5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable Attorney's FeesHourly RateState Bar AdmissionCertified SpecialistWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardBarrett Business ServicesInc.
References
1
Case No. ADJ2531693 (MON 0284829)
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

VIRGINIA SIEGEL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES - EXTENSION DEPARTMENT BUSINESS, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves the award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of making this supplemental award. Applicant's attorney requested $2,400.00 for six hours of work at $400.00 per hour, plus $179.07 in costs. The WCAB found this amount reasonable given the attorney's extensive experience and the successful outcome. An award of $2,579.07 in appellate attorney's fees and costs was made against the defendant.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeAppellate Attorney's FeeRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable Attorney FeesLegal ServicesPetition for Award of Attorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,800 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