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 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. ADJ8964113
Regular
Jun 24, 2016

LISA LIU vs. ADVENTURER HOTEL, TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services provided to applicant Lisa Liu. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the lien, finding it was filed untimely beyond the 18-month statutory limit. The lien claimant appealed, arguing the filing date of February 2, 2015, was within the period because the 18-month deadline of February 1, 2015, fell on a Sunday, extending the filing to the next business day. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the ALJ's order, and found the lien timely filed. The Board determined that per procedural rules, when the last day falls on a weekend, the deadline extends to the next business day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5(b)Statute of Limitations18-month periodRules of Practice and ProcedureBusiness DayEAMS RecordJudicial Notice
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

In re the Claim of Ross v. Standard Milling Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on February 5, 1980, which approved a $50 attorney’s fee as a lien upon an award made to the claimant. The claimant had sustained a back injury in March 1978 and received compensation payments from the carrier. After retaining an attorney, a hearing in May 1979 established accident, notice, and causal relationship, formalizing the award already paid by the carrier. The carrier contested the attorney's fee as a lien, arguing the claimant had already received the full award. The Board affirmed the lien, citing relevant case law and Section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLienAwardAffirmed DecisionStatutory InterpretationNew York LawBoard DecisionInsurance CarrierLegal Services
References
3
Case No. ADJ717785 (MON 0357270) ADJ2210479 (MON0357271) ADJ4156131 (MON 0357272) ADJ2088727 (MON 0357273)
Regular
Oct 12, 2010

GABRIELA MEDINA vs. INNOVATIVE FACILITY SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETTELK GROVE

This case involves a lien claimant, Arthur Malkin, D.C., seeking "re-reconsideration" of a prior denial of his lien claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was improperly brought, untimely filed, and constituted a successive petition on the same issues. The Board also directed the Workers' Compensation Judge to address the defendants' pending petition for costs, sanctions, and attorney's fees against the lien claimant.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationDismissalNewly discovered evidenceLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination filingWCJEAMS errorPetition for costssanctions
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ritz-Craft Corp. of PA, Inc. v. National Electrical Benefit Fund (In re Elm Ridge Associates)

The current case is an appeal before District Judge McMahon, concerning a dispute between Ritz-Craft Corporation (plaintiff-appellant) and National Electrical Benefit Fund (defendant-appellant). Ritz-Craft sought to subordinate NEBF's secured mortgage lien to its subsequently filed mechanics' lien, arguing NEBF filed a materially false affidavit under New York Lien Law § 22. The Bankruptcy Court had previously granted summary judgment to Ritz-Craft, finding a material defect in NEBF's affidavit regarding sums available for improvement. However, the District Court reversed this decision, ruling that the "net sum available to the borrower for the improvement" as per Lien Law § 22 can include funds already expended on improvements prior to the affidavit's filing. The court also clarified that compliance with Lien Law § 2.5 regarding "cost of improvement" is not relevant to the requirements of Section 22. Consequently, the District Court granted summary judgment to NEBF, dismissing Ritz-Craft’s complaint.

Lien LawMechanics' LienBuilding Loan ContractConstruction LoanMortgage SubordinationMaterially False AffidavitSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealReal Estate DevelopmentCost of Improvement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1994

In re Shurtleff

This case involves an objection filed by Wesley Carr, a judgment creditor, against the exemptions claimed by Paul C. and Joyce E. Shurtleff (Debtors) in their Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Carr also sought to terminate the automatic stay and have the trustee abandon the property. The Debtors claimed exemptions for funds in a checking account and milk proceeds, arguing they were exempt worker's compensation payments and wages. The Court determined that while Carr held a judicial lien on the accounts, the Debtors retained an interest and the ability to avoid the lien under bankruptcy code sections. Consequently, the Court denied Carr's objection to the exemptions and denied his motions without prejudice, allowing the Debtors 30 days to file a motion to avoid the liens.

BankruptcyExemptionsAutomatic StayJudicial LiensLien AvoidanceChapter 7New York LawProperty of EstateGarnishmentJudgment Creditor
References
6
Case No. ADJ8759866
Regular
Sep 01, 2016

ERNESTINA ESCAMILLA vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case addresses a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a denied lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was barred by Labor Code section 4903.5(a)'s 18-month limitations period. The Board ruled that because services were provided after July 1, 2013, the lien claimant was obligated to file within 18 months of the last service date, which they failed to do. The Board reasoned that the statute provided reasonable time for filing after its enactment.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)lien claimantreconsideration18-month limitation periodJuly 12013reasonable timeretroactive applicationproceduralvocational rehabilitation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. ADJ4297322
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

ARTURO SALAS vs. BAY CITY CONTAINERS, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed by the WCJ for failing to appear at a lien conference. The lien claimant argued they filed an objection and that dismissal for non-appearance was improper under Rule 10562. Although the petition was deemed timely filed as the claimant received the dismissal order late, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition due to procedural defects. Specifically, the petition was not properly served on adverse parties and lacked specific references to the record and applicable law as required by Board rules.

WCABlien claimantpetition for reconsiderationorder dismissing liennotice of intention to dismiss lienlien conferencefailure to appearobjectionserviceLabor Code section 5903
References
12
Case No. ADJ1529826 (LBO 0387552)
Regular
2015-00-00

MARY COSS vs. CENTURY 21, NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, finding it was filed over a year after the deadline. Despite the lien claimant's claims of not receiving notice, the Board found evidence of prior knowledge, including refiling the lien claim and a pattern of alleging lack of notice. The Board also initiated proceedings to assess attorney's fees, costs, and/or sanctions against the lien claimant for filing a frivolous and untimely petition. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and substantiating claims with evidence in workers' compensation proceedings.

References
6
Showing 1-10 of 12,236 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