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

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. ADJ2349671 (LAO 0787649) ADJ678557 (POM 00245222) ADJ767632 (POM 00245221)
Regular
Apr 19, 2010

BLAS MARIN vs. WEST COAST COMMUNICATIONS, and CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY

Applicant Blas Marin's petition for reconsideration of the Compromise and Release (C&R) is denied as untimely filed, though issues regarding fraud in the C&R execution can be pursued via a petition to reopen for good cause. Lien claimant Southern California Mental Health & Assessment Centers/Azadeh Rahimi, Ph.D.'s petition for reconsideration is granted because the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) improperly disallowed the lien without following proper procedure. The WCJ's order disallowing the lien is rescinded, and the matter is returned for further proceedings. Applicant's counsel was substituted on January 22, 2010, rendering previous filings by former counsel invalid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBlas MarinWest Coast CommunicationsContinental Casualty CompanyCNA Claim PlusGallagher Bassett ServicesADJ2349671ADJ678557ADJ767632Petition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ2897340 (VNO 0425114)
Regular
Dec 27, 2013

BLANCHE ALFI vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant who filed two liens with similar names for the same pharmacy. The WCJ dismissed one lien for failure to pay the activation fee, while the other, correctly paid, was settled. The lien claimant sought reconsideration, arguing the dismissal was moot because they paid the fee for the settled lien and that the dismissal order was invalid. The Board dismissed the petition, finding the lien claimant was not aggrieved by the dismissal and that the separate orders did not invalidate the settlement. The Board also admonished the claimant for wasting judicial resources with their filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien Activation FeeLabor Code section 4903.06(a)(4)WCJNegotiated SettlementIndustrial InjuryPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DelRossi v. V

This case addresses an application by Bernadette DelRossi, as administratrix of her deceased husband John E. DelRossi's estate, for court approval of a wrongful death settlement and a declaration regarding a lien asserted by Aetna/U.S. Healthcare. John E. DelRossi died due to alleged medical malpractice, leading to a wrongful death action that settled for $825,000. Aetna/U.S. Healthcare (Aetna/Rawlings), an ERISA plan administrator, sought reimbursement for medical benefits paid to the decedent from these proceeds. The court ruled that Aetna/Rawlings' lien was invalid against the wrongful death settlement, as such proceeds do not form part of the decedent's estate and the administratrix, in this capacity, is not considered a plan member. The court granted all aspects of the plaintiff's application, including approving the settlement, counsel fees, the proposed distribution plan to the six distributees, and dispensing with the requirement for the administratrix to post a bond.

Wrongful DeathMedical MalpracticeERISA PreemptionSettlement DistributionLien InvalidityEstate AdministrationPecuniary LossInfant DistributeesJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. ADJ7016910, ADJ7016880
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

DENNIS LEBER vs. HOWARDS APPLIANCES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a lien dismissal for non-payment of a $100 activation fee. The lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay based on a federal court order and a DWC Newsline. The Appeals Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, based on the interpretation that the federal court order allowed payment between November 9 and December 31, 2015. If the fee is paid, the lien claim will proceed to the trial level.

Lien activation feeLabor Code § 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDWC NewslineU.S. District CourtPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerDIR Newsline
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,550 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