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. ADJ8664704
Regular
Sep 02, 2013

SYLVIA THOMAS vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that took the case off calendar. The Appeals Board agreed that the June 18, 2013 hearing was a priority conference and should not have been removed from the calendar without further proceedings. The case is now returned to the trial level to be rescheduled for a priority conference and subsequent trial once discovery is complete.

Petition for RemovalOrder RescindedReturned to Trial LevelPriority ConferenceOff CalendarDiscovery CompleteWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationPermissibly Self-InsuredAdminSure
References
0
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Formal Opinion No.

This opinion from the Chairman of the New York Workers' Compensation Board addresses the priority of income execution and income deduction orders, established by the 1985 Support Enforcement Act (CPLR §§ 5241, 5242), against other statutory deductions from workers' compensation awards. Historically, WCL § 33 provided broad exemptions for workers' compensation benefits. However, WCL §§ 206(2) and 25(4)(a) allow for reimbursement of disability insurers and employers for advance payments, respectively, and WCL § 24 establishes liens for attorneys' fees, traditionally enjoying highest priority. The 1985 Act amended WCL § 33 to make benefits subject to support enforcement and also stipulated that income executions and deduction orders take priority over other assignments, levies, or processes. The Board concluded that claims for attorneys' fees and reimbursements by disability insurance carriers and employers are to be deducted first from the workers' compensation award. The support enforcement remedies under CPLR §§ 5241 and 5242 then apply to the balance of the workers' compensation benefits paid to the employee. This approach ensures prompt payment to injured workers and prevents double payment issues.

Workers' CompensationSupport Enforcement ActIncome ExecutionIncome DeductionLien PriorityStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits ReimbursementEmployer ReimbursementAttorneys' Fees PriorityCPLR 5241
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Well Bilt Box Spring Corp.

An assignee for the benefit of creditors moved to disallow a claim for priority filed by the United Furniture Workers Insurance Fund. The fund sought $480 for unpaid group welfare insurance premiums, which accrued from September 1947 to April 1948 under a collective bargaining agreement. The assignee contended that the Debtor and Creditor Law section 21-a did not provide priority for such claims, arguing it applied to employee-contributed pension plans, not employer-paid insurance. The court referenced conflicting precedents from Matter of Seaboard Furniture Mfg. Corp. (Frey) and Matter of Hollywood Commissary, Inc. (Weintraub). Adopting the view of Justice Walsh, the court ruled that this was a contract matter between the employer and union, not a claim for wages, and noted the claim was made by the insurance carrier rather than the union or employees. Consequently, the court disallowed the claim for priority and granted the assignee's application to settle their account.

Priority ClaimAssignee for CreditorsInsurance FundCollective Bargaining AgreementWelfare InsuranceEmployer ContributionsDebtor and Creditor LawSection 21-aWage ClaimContract Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. ADJ8041070
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

JUANA MONROY vs. GATE GOURMET INC., TRAVELERS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied Travelers' Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse an order taking the case off calendar. The Board found that placing the matter off calendar would not cause substantial prejudice to Travelers. However, due to a genuine issue regarding injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), the Board ordered bifurcation of that issue. The case will be reset for a priority conference, and if the AOE/COE issue is not resolved, it will proceed to trial on that specific matter.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderAOE-COEBifurcationAgreed Medical EvaluatorWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmPriority Conference CalendarPretrial Conference Statement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almanzar v. Rye Ridge Realty Co.

Plaintiffs initiated a negligence action in 1982 against Rye Ridge Realty, Veemac Elevator, and Accessories By Pearl after an elevator fall in 1981, leading to multiple injuries. The case was marked off the calendar in 1993 due to a plaintiff's unavailability and subsequently dismissed in 1994 under CPLR 3404 for failure to restore within one year. Plaintiffs' motion to restore the action in 1997, citing excuses like a pending workers' compensation claim and medical treatment, was granted by the motion court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the four criteria for restoration: a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for delay, lack of intent to abandon, and no prejudice to the non-moving party. Consequently, the action was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal for renewal and reargument was dismissed as academic.

NegligencePersonal InjuryElevator AccidentMotion to RestoreAction DismissalCPLR 3404Failure to ProsecutePresumption of AbandonmentPrejudiceAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. ADJ8564064, ADJ8564068
Regular
Dec 18, 2014

MARIA RAMIREZ vs. PRIORITY BUSINESS SERVICES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Maria Ramirez's petition for removal, seeking to undo a notation on a Minute Order from a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). Ramirez alleged irreparable harm from an order compelling her to attend a Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) despite an agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME). The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence that the WCJ ordered a PQME or that Ramirez requested an AME examination with the proposed evaluator. The WCJ correctly took the cases off calendar due to the defendant's timely objection to Ramirez's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, which relied on a deceased AME's report.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorOff CalendarIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 533 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