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. ADJ2212288
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

GUILLERMO GOMEZ vs. BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien claims. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitions for reconsideration because the case file lacked proof of service for the notice of the lien trial. The Board has ordered the defendant to provide proof of service within 15 days. This action is intended to allow for a proper review of the facts and law regarding the dismissed liens.

Lien Claim DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceMinutes of HearingLien TrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJBrinderson ConstructorsTravelers InsuranceWestside Health-Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. ADJ3964372 (MON 0247784) ADJ4081926 (MON 0247785)
Regular
Dec 07, 2018

ROBERT BAKER vs. CITY OF COMPTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Robert Baker's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed *in pro per* without proof of service on all adverse parties, including his own attorney. The petition also failed to meet the requirements of Appeals Board Rule 10856 by not providing a specific offer of proof for newly discovered evidence or fraud. Consequently, the Board found the petition defective on multiple grounds.

Petition for Reconsiderationin pro perJoint Order Approving C&RWCJAppeals Board Rule 10856newly discovered evidenceoffer of proofcumulative evidenceproof of serviceadverse parties
References
3
Case No. ADJ859639
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

TERESA BONILLA vs. CHILDREN'S INSTITUTE, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sustained multiple injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the burden of proof for the Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) 15% permanent disability increase. The Board found that while the applicant has an initial burden to show no modified work offer was made, the employer bears the burden of proving they offered modified work or have fewer than 50 employees. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for further development of the record on these specific issues.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)Petition for Reconsiderationpermanent disability increaseburden of proofemployer employee countmodified work offeraffirmative defensevocational rehabilitationpermanent and stationary dateapportionment
References
11
Case No. ADJ6951416
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

BRETTEN JOHNSON vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX CONCRETE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's claim for failure to pay an activation fee prior to a lien conference. The lien claimant alleged proof of payment was presented, but the WCJ stated no such proof was offered and the fee was not reflected in the system at the time. The Board is considering sanctions against the lien claimant's representatives for alleged misrepresentations and filing frivolous positions, finding the petition lacked record support and contained potentially false statements. A decision on the merits of the lien claimant's petition is pending.

Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4903.06ReconsiderationSanctionsBad-faith actionsMisrepresentationsWCJHearing representativeEAMS
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bennett

The Chapter 13 debtor, Ernest Bennett, objected to a $34,821 proof of claim filed by Ernest Crute, stemming from a dispute over renovation work Bennett performed on Crute's house in Mount Vernon, New York. Both parties offered conflicting testimonies regarding the existence of a written contract, the scope of work, quality, and financial responsibilities. The court found that Bennett successfully rebutted Crute's initial claim. Crute then failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of credible evidence, citing issues with contract authenticity, lack of proof for expenses, and uncorroborated testimony. Consequently, the court granted the debtor's motion to expunge the claim.

BankruptcyChapter 13Proof of ClaimExpungementContract DisputeRenovationCredibilityBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceWritten Contract
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Department of Social Services v. Oscar C.

This case examines whether the Family Court properly utilized a dual burden of proof in a child neglect proceeding involving two Indian children. The Family Court applied the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard during the fact-finding phase and the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard during the dispositional phase. The appellant father argued that the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) preempted New York State law, requiring the 'clear and convincing' standard for both phases. The court concluded that the ICWA does not preempt State law when the State law offers a higher standard of protection, and that New York's dual burden of proof can be harmonized with the ICWA's provisions. The court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no conflict with federal law regarding the application of these standards.

Indian Child Welfare ActChild Neglect ProceedingDual Burden of ProofPreemption DoctrineFamily Court JurisdictionFact-Finding StandardDispositional StandardParental RightsIndigenous ChildrenAlaska Native Village
References
13
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,868 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