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
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

McNamara v. Tourneau, Inc.

In this employment discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pro se plaintiff Charles McNamara and defendant Tourneau, Inc. reached a settlement during court-ordered mediation, signing a stipulation that included "Standard 21 day language." McNamara later refused to sign a formal agreement, alleging misrepresentation during mediation and asserting his right to revoke. Tourneau moved to enforce the settlement, arguing it was a binding contract. The Court found the stipulation to be a fully binding preliminary agreement. However, due to ambiguity in the "Standard 21 day language"—which pertained to the ADEA's 21-day consideration and 7-day revocation periods—and considering extrinsic evidence, including Tourneau's own proposed formal agreement, the Court concluded that McNamara retained the right to revoke prior to signing the formal contract. Consequently, Tourneau's motion to enforce the settlement was denied, and the case was reinstated, as McNamara's revocation was deemed timely.

Employment DiscriminationADA ClaimADEA WaiverSettlement EnforcementContract AmbiguityMediation ProgramPro Se PlaintiffRevocation RightsOWBPA ComplianceNew York Contract Law
References
21
Case No. ADJ3122863
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

LARRY LUCKETT vs. BSK & ASSOCIATES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, upholding an award based on the parties' stipulations. The defendant sought to amend the stipulated date of injury, arguing it fell outside the insolvent carrier's coverage period, but the Board found no good cause to set aside the stipulation. The Board emphasized that stipulations are binding unless there is a mistake of fact, and the defendant's argument was deemed to stem from a lack of diligence rather than an actual error.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardDate of InjuryFremont Compensation Insurance CompanyIn LiquidationValley FeverAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Sequeira

Plaintiff Juan Reyes and defendant Rafael Sequeira, 50% owners of two dissolved corporations (SAR and 91 Graham Avenue Realty Corporation), were involved in a dispute over corporate assets. Reyes sued Sequeira for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and an accounting, alleging Sequeira attempted to sell properties and transfer funds without his consent. The parties entered a settlement stipulating that property values would be determined by averaging two appraisals. However, after one appraisal was disputed, a third was obtained, and the Supreme Court averaged all three, contrary to the stipulation. Defendant appealed this valuation order. During the pendency of the appeal, Supreme Court, with a new justice presiding, granted a motion to vacate the original stipulations of settlement, concluding that no binding agreement existed. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as moot because the underlying stipulations, which were foundational to the appealed order, had been vacated. Additionally, the court ruled that the order appealed from was non-appealable as it was issued sua sponte.

Corporate DissolutionShareholder DisputeProperty ValuationStipulation of SettlementMootness DoctrineAppealability of OrdersSua Sponte OrderBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate AccountingAppraisal Methods
References
37
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00089 [201 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Myristica, LLC v. Camp Myristica, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a mortgage foreclosure action initiated by Myristica, LLC against Camp Myristica, Ltd. and other defendants, including David Kramer. The core dispute revolves around a stipulation of settlement reached by the parties, which resolved the original foreclosure action and cross-claims asserted by David Kramer. Kramer subsequently moved to vacate this stipulation, alleging mutual mistake and fraud regarding the premium membership status of Ron E. Chugerman and Alyson Chugerman within Camp Myristica, Ltd. The Supreme Court denied Kramer's motion to vacate, finding the stipulation binding and that Kramer failed to demonstrate good cause. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying Kramer's motion to vacate the stipulation, noting that Kramer's arguments regarding mutual mistake and fraud were unpreserved or lacked merit. The Court also dismissed Kramer's appeal from a later order denying his motion to reargue, as no appeal lies from such a denial.

Settlement stipulationVacate stipulationMortgage foreclosureCorporate governancePremium membershipFraud allegationMutual mistakeAppellate reviewUnpreserved argumentOpen court stipulation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. ADJ7274616
Regular
Jul 20, 2012

ARNULFO CERVANTES vs. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding that an applicant's stroke arose out of and occurred in the course of his employment. The denial was based on a stipulation between the parties that the applicant's job was stressful. This stipulation established "stressful employment" as fact, binding on the parties. The Workers' Compensation Judge correctly utilized this stipulation along with medical evidence to reach the original finding.

WCABReconsiderationStipulationStressful EmploymentPQME EvidenceStrokeArising Out OfCourse Of EmploymentMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ7765356
Regular
Jul 26, 2011

WESLEY CAIN vs. LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Metropolitan Authority's petition for reconsideration. The Authority sought to alter a prior stipulation that awarded applicant Wesley Cain medical treatment for an admitted industrial injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the stipulation was a binding agreement. The WCJ determined the language of the stipulation clearly provided for ongoing medical care and the Authority provided no evidence to alter this entitlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeStipulation and Request for AwardMedical treatmentIndustrial injuryMetro train driverSuicide attemptContract principlesBinding agreement
References
1
Case No. ADJ8911967
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

URSULA KRAMER vs. MACY'S WEST, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

This case concerns Macy's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award based on a stipulation. Macy's claims mutual mistake of fact and clerical error regarding permanent disability indemnity and attorney fees. The Board denies the petition, finding no mutual mistake and that Macy's error stemmed from a lack of diligence in drafting the stipulation. The Board emphasizes that stipulations are binding unless good cause is shown, which Macy's failed to demonstrate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationsAwardMutual Mistake of FactClerical ErrorLabor Code §4658(d)Permanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeGood Cause
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,351 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