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

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2008

Mayo v. Personnel Review Board of the Health & Hospitals Corp.

The case involves a petitioner, an HHC supervisor, whose employment was terminated after an altercation. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially recommended dismissal of charges related to assault and unbecoming conduct. However, the Personnel Review Board (PRB) upheld the termination based on an uncharged ground: the petitioner's failure to immediately report the incident. The Supreme Court annulled the PRB's decision, citing a due process violation due to reliance on uncharged misconduct, deemed the termination penalty disproportionate, and directed reinstatement. This appellate court affirmed the finding of a due process violation but modified the Supreme Court's order, remanding the matter to the PRB for further proceedings consistent with the lack of sufficient notice. The court also clarified that the Supreme Court prematurely addressed the application of HHC personnel rule 7.5.6, stating that the PRB should interpret this rule first.

Due Process ViolationUncharged MisconductAdministrative HearingEmployment TerminationReinstatementRemandSufficiency of NoticeAssault ChargesFailure to ReportPersonnel Rules
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. ADJ8128330
Regular
Feb 14, 2014

FARID OMARI vs. MISSION ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Mission Essential Personnel and Zurich Insurance. The defendant sought to dismiss the applicant's claim, arguing it was preempted by the Defense Base Act. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, denying the petition. Furthermore, the Board noted multiple procedural violations by defense counsel, including improper pleading, lack of verification, and failure to adhere to rules regarding exhibits and counsel identification, warning against future frivolous conduct.

Petition for RemovalDefense Base Actjurisdictionpreemptedoff calendarWCJWCAB Rule 10490WCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10498WCAB Rule 10842(c)
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration between National Union Fire Insurance v. Personnel Plus, Inc.

Petitioner National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh sought judicial appointment of a neutral umpire in an arbitration dispute with respondents Personnel Plus, Inc. and Great Dane Management Services, Inc. concerning a workers' compensation liability insurance program. The respondents challenged the arbitration on grounds that Great Dane was a non-signatory, the chosen court lacked jurisdiction, and the underlying payment agreement was unenforceable under California law. The District Court, finding agency applied to Great Dane and upholding the forum-selection clause, granted National Union's petition, compelling arbitration for all claims and appointing Kevin Martin as the neutral umpire. The court also ruled that the enforceability of the payment agreement should be decided by the arbitral panel.

Arbitration AgreementUmpire AppointmentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityContractual DisputeForum Selection ClauseAgency RelationshipFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActArbitrabilityJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. ADJ7032650
Regular
Jul 21, 2011

ROBERTA CORRAL vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the case of *Roberta Corral v. Personnel Plus, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning provided in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. This decision affirms the prior ruling and dismisses the request for further review. The order was officially filed on July 21, 2011.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalAdministrative Law JudgePetitionDeniedPersonnel PlusNational Union Fire InsuranceRoberta CorralADJ7032650
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falkowski v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Commercial Personnel Services, Inc., Commercial Transportation Group, and Commercial Logistics, Inc. appealed parts of the order that granted summary judgment to Krasdale Foods, Inc. on claims of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Krasdale Foods, Inc. cross-appealed the granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action, and the denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order regarding both the appeals and the cross-appeal. This decision upholds the lower court's rulings on contractual indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and the allowance of the amended complaint for negligent entrustment, while denying Krasdale's motion to dismiss the complaint due to unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceNegligent EntrustmentAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmed Order
References
20
Case No. ADJ3431129 (LAO 0786011)
Regular
Jul 15, 2016

ISRAEL GALINDO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, PDQ PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant was a special employee of the County of Los Angeles and a general employee of PDQ Personnel Services, whose insurer, Superior National, became insolvent. CIGA contended its liability was excluded because the County's self-insurance constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(A). The WCAB granted reconsideration to clarify that, based on prior Court of Appeal rulings and collateral estoppel, the County's self-insurance is indeed "other insurance," thus absolving CIGA of liability. The WCAB amended the findings to explicitly state this determination.

CIGAPDQ Personnel ServicesSuperior National Insurance Companyliquidationother insuranceInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(A)collateral estoppelgeneral employerspecial employerself-insured
References
6
Case No. 533111
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Tara Brown

The claimant, Tara Brown, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained during employment as a medical driver. Buffalo Transportation, Inc. was initially identified as the employer, with State National Insurance Company, Inc. (carrier for Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. - SPLI) providing coverage. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Buffalo Transportation liable and State National as the carrier. However, the Board later amended its decision, ruling that Brown was not a leased employee of SPLI, thus not covered by State National's policy, and rescinded State National's liability. As a result of this amended decision, the instant appeal by SPLI and State National from the original September 10, 2020 decision was dismissed as moot because they were no longer aggrieved parties.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployee LeasingInsurance Coverage DisputeMoot AppealAppellate DivisionCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision AmendmentThird Judicial Department
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff James Meehan, Administrator of Michael J. Meehan's estate, initiated an action against the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.A., and U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the Federal Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI). He alleged that his son, Michael J. Meehan, was wrongfully denied free life insurance, despite having signed a waiver during his employment. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The court concurred with the defendants, ruling that the claim constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, thereby necessitating the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. Additionally, the court noted that the action would have been time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations and that Meehan had properly waived his life insurance.

Federal Group Life Insurance ActSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsLife Insurance Waiver
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 7,007 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