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

Farkas v. Ellis

The court addressed the plaintiffs' motion for recusal of Judge William C. Conner, based on allegations of bias and prejudice. Plaintiffs cited judicial acts and statements, as well as a perceived 'working relationship' between the judge and the Administrator, Mr. Ellis. The Court denied the recusal motion, stating that the alleged bias did not stem from an extrajudicial source, which is a requirement for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(b)(1). The Court also clarified that even under the objective 'reasonable person' standard of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), no appearance of partiality was established. Furthermore, the Court raised concerns regarding subject matter jurisdiction, ordering plaintiffs to show cause why the action should not be dismissed, as the Administrator, Mr. Ellis, is not an 'agency' under the cited statutes (5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 706) for judicial review of agency actions.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasExtrajudicial Source of BiasSubject Matter JurisdictionAgency Action ReviewConsent Decree Administrator28 U.S.C. 14428 U.S.C. 4555 U.S.C. 7025 U.S.C. 706
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. ADJ10455142
Regular
Oct 19, 2017

RUBEN CELEDON vs. ADVANCED STRUCTURAL ALLOYS, LLC, ENSTAR NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition to disqualify the administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant alleged bias due to a purported "preexisting relationship" with applicant's attorney and the WCJ's rulings. However, the defendant provided no specific facts to support the relationship claim, and the WCJ denied it. Erroneous rulings, even if numerous, do not automatically establish judicial bias, and the WCJ had previously corrected an order at the defendant's request. The Board found no evidence of bias and denied the petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWCAB Rule 10452WCJ biaspreexisting relationshiperroneous rulingsaffidavitCode of Civil Procedure Section 641declaration under penalty of perjurysubjective perception of biasWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. Donovan

Plaintiff, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, initiated this action seeking judicial review of several decisions by the Department of Labor concerning his workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in 1979. Although claims for head and knee injuries were approved, his back injury claim was denied, leading him to seek reconsideration and alleging a denial of due process due to a hearing representative's perceived bias. The plaintiff sought court intervention to disqualify the Department of Labor and appoint a special hearing officer. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b), which generally bars judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's decisions on workers' compensation. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action because the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies within the Department of Labor, thus deeming the complaint unripe for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationFederal Employees' Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimRipeness DoctrineExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawFBI Agent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Riches v. New York City Council

This case concerns an appeal affirming the dismissal of a summary judicial inquiry requested by eight citizens against the New York City Council and Speaker Quinn. The petitioners sought an inquiry into the Council's practice of allocating funds to "fictitious organizations" or "holding codes" during its budgeting process, alleging violations of the New York City Charter. The motion court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that the Supreme Court justice appropriately exercised discretion in denying the inquiry. The decision was based on reasons including extensive public disclosure of the practice, ongoing investigations by governmental agencies, and the determination that the alleged transgression was not the type of venal act the Charter provision was designed to address. The court affirmed that granting such an inquiry is a matter of sound judicial discretion.

Summary judicial inquiryNew York City Charter Section 1109City Council budgetingFictitious organizationsGovernmental misconductAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewJudicial discretionPublic interestOngoing investigations
References
17
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. ADJ7423135; ADJ7423167 ADJ7423165; ADJ7423160 ADJ2846465 (SAL 0071191) ADJ1099124 (SAL 0110049) ADJ1286808 (SAL 0071188) ADJ4253389 (SJO 0233441) ADJ3450760 (SJO 0225032) ADJ2325597 (SJO 0232035) ADJ1931744 (SJO 0233439) ADJ1747524 (SJO 0126462)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

ROBERT DOMINGUEZ vs. EP & G PROPERTIES, ADVANTAGE WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE

This case involves applicant Robert Dominguez's petition for disqualification of a workers' compensation judge. The applicant alleged bias and an unfair hearing, citing the court favoring the defendant. However, the Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the applicant was sworn in and testified at trial. The Board also found no evidence of judicial bias in the record.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452timely petitionuntimely petitionFindings and AwardWCJ Report and Recommendationapplicant's testimonysworn witnessdismissal of petition
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Continental Insurance

Petitioner, injured in a May 1990 work-related automobile accident, was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Respondent, the compensation carrier, asserted a lien claim and required written consent for any third-party settlement. In July 1993, petitioner settled a third-party action for $60,000 without obtaining respondent's consent. Consequently, respondent suspended benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board approved the termination of awards in May 1995. Nine years later, in November 2002, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the inordinate nine-year delay in seeking judicial approval was inexcusable, despite petitioner's prior knowledge of the consent requirement and the carrier's consistent assertion of its rights.

Workers CompensationJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementThird-Party ActionCarrier ConsentDelayPrejudiceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,322 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