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

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

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Sanchez v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a settlement pertaining to an infant plaintiff's emotional injuries. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial. Plaintiffs, including the infant's guardian, claimed they only discovered the true extent of the infant's emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, in the summer of 2005 following an examination by a social worker. However, the court found that these psychological injuries were known from the case's inception in 2001 and were appropriately considered when the settlement was agreed upon in December 2004. Evidence, including a 2001 psychiatric evaluation, confirmed the infant's diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the settlement agreement.

Settlement DisputeInfant's RightsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderVacating SettlementCompromise OrderPsychological HarmSearch Warrant ExecutionAppellate AffirmationParental GuardianJudicial Discretion
References
2
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
Feb 02, 2000

Stiffen v. CNA Insurance

Petitioner Robert W. Stiffen, injured in the course of his employment, received workers' compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. He settled a third-party action against Charles Newman for $25,000 without the carrier's prior consent. Although benefits were initially reinstated, the carrier later refused retroactive consent to the settlement. Petitioners subsequently sought nunc pro tunc approval for the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which the Supreme Court granted. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding the settlement reasonable, the delay in seeking approval not attributable to petitioners' fault, and no prejudice caused to the carrier by the delay.

Nunc pro tuncPersonal injury settlementWorkers' Compensation LawThird-party actionCarrier consentJudicial approvalPrejudiceReasonableness of settlementDelay in applicationWaiver of consent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoesen v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co.

Judge Mikoll, in a dissenting opinion, advocates for the affirmation of Special Term's decision concerning a settlement reached in open court. The judge emphasizes that agreements made in open court, with the involvement of counsel and the court, should remain undisturbed unless extraordinary reasons necessitate otherwise. The crux of the dispute lies in interpreting a prior settlement order from January 29, 1976, which mandates Lumbermens Mutual to reimburse plaintiff Kenneth Van Hoesen for legal fees based on the 'full value of the Workmen’s Compensation claim, including compensation payments and medical payments.' Judge Mikoll argues that had the parties intended to exclude the $2,540.80 waived lien from the total claim, they should have explicitly stated this in simple language. Consequently, the dissenting judge concludes that the provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(1) should not be applied to alter the established terms of this agreement, thereby supporting the original interpretation in favor of Van Hoesen.

Settlement AgreementCounsel FeesWorkers' Compensation LawLien WaiverOpen Court AgreementDissenting OpinionStatutory InterpretationReimbursementLegal FeesCourt Order Interpretation
References
2
Case No. ADJ10 120757
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

MARTIN RIVERA vs. BRS INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that a prior settlement did not resolve the current claim. The applicant sustained two separate injuries on different dates while employed by the same business under different ownership and insurance carriers. The prior settlement explicitly released only the former employer and its carrier, not the current defendant. Therefore, the Board found no privity of interest to bind the current defendant to the prior settlement.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationSpecific InjuryRight ShoulderNeck InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDifferent EmployersInsurance CarriersPrivity of Interest
References
1
Case No. ADJ2018536 (AHM 01311)
Regular
Dec 19, 2011

MARIA TELMA BORJAS vs. ST. MARY & ALL ANGELS SCHOOL, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a stipulated order approving a $200 lien payment to Better Sleeping Medical (BSM). The defendant alleged a prior settlement of BSM's lien for $1,000 and a mutual mistake of fact. While the judge found no evidence of the prior settlement or mistake, the Board determined further inquiry was necessary. The matter was returned to the trial level for a lien conference to allow the defendant to present proof of the prior settlement and for BSM to respond.

ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantMutual MistakeVerified PetitionWCJReport and RecommendationBoard FileExecuted ContractUnresolved Issues
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1982

Claim of Moore v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a carrier's conduct regarding a claimant's third-party action settlement. The core issue was whether the board's finding that the carrier was estopped from raising lack of consent to the settlement as a defense for future compensation awards was supported by substantial evidence. The record showed that the claimant's attorney sought the carrier's consent multiple times but was advised it was unnecessary. The board concluded that the carrier's prior denials of the necessity for consent legally prevented them from later asserting its absence as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelThird-Party ActionSettlement ConsentCarrier ConductFuture AwardsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimant RightsDefense Waiver
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,373 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