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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Thalle Construction Co.

Plaintiff Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sued defendant Thalle Construction Company, Inc., alleging breach of contract for refusal to pay a retrospective premium adjustment under a general commercial liability insurance policy. Defendant Thalle argued that Liberty Mutual's improper settlement of the 'McMichael Claim' constituted a breach of the implied duty of good faith and nonperformance of a condition precedent, excusing its payment obligations. Thalle claimed Liberty Mutual conducted a careless investigation and settled excessively. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge William C. Conner, granted Liberty Mutual's motion for summary judgment and denied Thalle's cross-motion. The court found no recognized cause of action or defense under New York law for a breach of implied good faith regarding increased retrospective premiums based on an insurer's investigation or settlement methods. The court distinguished this from 'bad-faith' doctrines in settlement offers within policy limits, noting that in retrospective premium cases, it is in the insurer's best interest to minimize costs.

Retrospective PremiumCommercial General LiabilityBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentImplied Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingInsurance PolicySettlement DisputeInvestigation PracticesCondition PrecedentNew York Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. ADJ2753128 (VNO 0558451)
Regular
Sep 01, 2012

FARAMARZ MORVARI vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a defendant's request for removal concerning an order setting a trial after a mandatory settlement conference. The defendant argues the trial should not have been set because the applicant's participation in settlement negotiations and his Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) were not in good faith, hindering essential discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the applicant's DOR was legally defective for failing to specify good faith settlement efforts. Consequently, the trial order was rescinded, and the case was taken off calendar.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Jens DimmickM.D.Good Faith EffortDiscoveryOff Calendar
References
0
Case No. ADJ9721385
Regular
Jun 07, 2016

JUAN PABLO BELTRAN vs. STRUCTURAL STEEL FABRICATORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning a WCJ's order that disallowed settlement of a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit (SJDB) voucher. The Board held that parties can settle an SJDB voucher claim in a Compromise and Release Agreement if a good faith dispute exists that could defeat the applicant's entitlement to all workers' compensation benefits. In this case, the applicant's failure to report the injury before termination constituted such a good faith dispute, allowing the settlement of the SJDB voucher. The Board therefore approved the parties' original Compromise and Release Agreement, including the settlement of the SJDB voucher.

Supplemental Job Displacement BenefitCompromise and ReleaseGood Faith DisputeSB863Vocational RehabilitationLabor Code Section 4658.7Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAffirmative DefenseAOE/COE
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Life Settlements, Inc. v. Viasource Funding Group, LLC

This is a diversity action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs Greenwich Life Settlements, Inc. and Greenwich Settlements Master Trust (collectively "Greenwich") bring this action against defendant ViaSource Funding Group, LLC. Greenwich claims to be a third-party beneficiary to a life insurance contract purchased from ViaSource by non-party Legacy Benefits Corp. ViaSource moved to dismiss Greenwich’s Corrected Amended Complaint on grounds of res judicata and failure to join an indispensable party, or alternatively, to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The court denied all of ViaSource’s motions, finding that res judicata did not apply as Greenwich was not in privity with Legacy in prior litigations, Legacy was not an indispensable party, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York.

Contract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryLife InsuranceViatical SettlementsRes JudicataCivil ProcedureIndispensable PartiesVenue DisputesDiversity JurisdictionTortious Interference
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Plaza Restoration, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff insured brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment, alleging that the defendant insurer breached its covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This alleged breach related to a personal injury action previously commenced against the plaintiff by a construction worker. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had denied its motion to dismiss the complaint or for summary judgment, arguing the action was premature. The appellate court rejected the defendant's contention, affirming that a declaratory judgment action against an insurer is permissible even before a judgment in the underlying action. The order of the Supreme Court was affirmed, with costs.

Declaratory JudgmentBreach of CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingInsurance LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site InjuryRipeness DoctrineMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Carrier Corp.

Sandra Dunbar, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), petitioned for a Section 10(j) injunction against Carrier to prevent the relocation of its TR-1 facility from Syracuse, New York, to Huntersville, North Carolina. The NLRB alleged that Carrier failed to bargain in good faith with Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 527 (union) over the relocation decision, insisting to impasse on a non-mandatory subject that would alter the bargaining unit's scope. The court found reasonable cause to believe Carrier committed unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith regarding the mandatory subject of relocation. The injunction was granted in part, ordering Carrier to bargain in good faith with the union on the relocation decision and its effects, and enjoining further relocation actions without a good-faith impasse or agreement. A subsequent motion by Carrier for reconsideration, modification, and a limited stay pending appeal was denied.

Labor RelationsUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingSection 10(j) InjunctionRelocation of WorkBargaining ImpasseMandatory Bargaining SubjectPermissive Bargaining SubjectWaiver of RightsStatus Quo Ante
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 3,018 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