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. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. ADJ7408183
Regular
Feb 09, 2016

GABRIEL LOPEZ vs. EXPRESS REGENCY PARKING, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves a dispute over conflicting stay orders on lien claims filed by Landmark Medical Management. The Appeals Board granted Landmark's Petition for Removal, rescinding a June 26, 2015 order that stayed proceedings due to criminal and civil indictments against Landmark. This rescinded order was superseded by an earlier, broader stay order from May 14, 2015, in a consolidated matter. The Board is consolidating this case with the prior stayed matters to ensure consistent application of a single stay order.

Petition for RemovalLandmark Medical ManagementPharmaFinance LLCMedRx Funding LLCSupplemental Minute Ordercriminal indictmentscivil complaintconflicting stay orderOscar ArreolaWestern Door & Trim
References
2
Case No. ADJ2975271 (OXN 0141978)
Regular
Feb 09, 2018

BAUDELIO CHAVARRIA vs. AMERICAN LANDSCAPE, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, rescinding a July 1, 2015, order that stayed proceedings on lien claims filed by Landmark Medical Management. This rescission was based on a conflict with a prior, overarching stay order issued on May 14, 2015, in a consolidated matter. The Board found that the earlier stay order takes precedence and ordered this matter consolidated with the previously stayed cases pending before WCJ Devine.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental Minute OrderLien ClaimsCriminal IndictmentsCivil ComplaintConflicting Stay OrderPrior Stay OrderRescindedAppeals BoardConsolidation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. SAU8813471
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

KIMBERLY KENNEY vs. SEGUOYAH, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for removal of an order consolidating liens and imposing a temporary stay. The consolidation aims to resolve a common legal issue regarding whether the lien claimant is controlled by a criminally charged physician, which would trigger an automatic stay under Labor Code section 4615. The Board found no due process violation, as the order only stays other lien issues pending the common issue's adjudication. Furthermore, the consolidation serves judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicate rulings on this critical threshold matter.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrder of Consolidation and StayLien ClaimantLabor Code section 4615Due ProcessIssue PreclusionConsolidation OrderWCJFarmers Insurance Exchange
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1982

Fitzgerald v. Patz Co.

This is a products liability action where manufacturer defendants (appellants) failed to timely answer the complaint, leading to a default judgment against them. Appellants argued that their delay was excusable because they were awaiting a decision on their motion for a change of venue, which also requested a stay. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to reopen default and granted an inquest. On consolidated appeals, the Appellate Division found a legally sufficient excuse for the default, distinguishing it from inexcusable law office failure. The court modified the order denying the motion to reopen default, granting the appellants' motion to vacate the default and deeming the answer timely served. It reversed the order granting an inquest and denied it, and dismissed another appeal as moot.

products liabilitydefault judgmentvacating defaulttimely answervenue changelaw office failureCPLR 5015CPLR 3211appellate reviewjudicial discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valdivia v. Consolidated Resistance Co.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant Consolidated Resistance Company of America, Inc., in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding claims asserted against it. It determined that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Furthermore, the court found the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims premature, given that discovery was incomplete. The case was remanded, allowing the defendant to potentially renew motions after discovery has concluded.

personal injurysummary judgmentLabor Lawnegligencediscoveryappellate reviewconstruction accidentproperty ownerpremises liabilityworkplace safety
References
16
Case No. ADJ8861723
Regular
Aug 27, 2018

ARACELI FLORES vs. VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS/SANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISES, CLAREDON INSURANCE

Lien claimant Mesa Pharmacy sought removal of a WCJ's order that deferred the critical issue of whether its lien was stayed under Labor Code § 4615. Mesa argued this denial of due process and prejudicially delayed adjudication of its lien. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the matter for proceedings consistent with a prior consolidation order. This consolidation addressed common issues regarding Mesa Pharmacy's liens and potential stays under § 4615 due to criminal proceedings against related parties.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4615Stayed LienCriminally Charged ProviderDue ProcessConsolidated CasesMaster FileWCJOrder of Consolidation
References
1
Case No. 95 Civ. 8477, 95 Civ. 9973, 97 Civ. 7352
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Creditors' Committees of Commodore International Ltd. (In Re Commodore Business MacHines)

This memorandum and order addresses consolidated appeals from two Bankruptcy Court orders and a separate petition for a writ of mandamus. Appellants, including liquidators and their counsel, challenged orders stemming from their actions in Bahamian liquidation proceedings which were found to have violated a US Bankruptcy Court order and an automatic stay. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's August 7, 1995 order, which enjoined the liquidators from certain actions. The appeal of the September 21, 1995 order, which included findings of contempt, was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, though the contempt finding itself was affirmed. The petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the Bankruptcy Court to reconsider its injunctions, was denied due to the appellants' duplicative and protracted litigation tactics.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComityAncillary ProceedingsLiquidationContempt of CourtWrit of MandamusSanctionsInter-jurisdictional DisputeBahamian CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1992

A.A. Building Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union 580 of the International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment from July 16, 1992, which granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration demanded by the respondent union. An appeal from an earlier order dated March 9, 1992, which temporarily stayed arbitration for settlement facilitation, was dismissed as superseded. The court determined that the dispute, involving whether specific work should have been performed by the respondent's union members and consequently whether the employer should contribute to their benefit fund, was a jurisdictional dispute. Such disputes were explicitly excluded from the parties' arbitration agreement, thereby upholding the stay of arbitration.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeLabor UnionStay of ArbitrationContractual ExclusionCollective Bargaining AgreementNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 24,537 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