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

Claim of Williams v. Lloyd Gunther Elevator Service, Inc.

Claimant, who established a compensable workers' compensation claim in 2003, also pursued a third-party personal injury action, which settled for $35,000 on September 16, 2010, with claimant receiving the funds on October 5, 2010. The employer's workers' compensation carrier then suspended payments, arguing its credit against the third-party recovery should begin on the settlement consent date (September 16, 2010), while the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and Board ruled it began on the date claimant received the settlement (October 5, 2010). The Board based its decision on the distinction that the workers' compensation carrier was not the third-party carrier, citing Employer: Icon Routing, a precedent the appellate court found did not support this premise. Reviewing prior Board decisions, the court noted that carriers were permitted to take credit from the consent date if explicitly stated in the consent letter, irrespective of whether the workers' compensation carrier and the third-party carrier were the same. As the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its established precedent, the appellate court reversed the decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlement CreditLien on ProceedsCommencement DateStatutory InterpretationBoard PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate ReviewRemand
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 1999

Leftwich v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioner insured's application to compel arbitration for supplementary underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage and granted the respondent insurer's cross-motion to permanently stay arbitration. This decision was unanimously affirmed. The court found that the petitioner's automobile insurance policy clearly stipulated that all amounts received from jointly and severally liable persons and workers' compensation benefits would be offset against the $500,000 SUM coverage. Since the petitioner had received over $1.4 million from tortfeasors and workers' compensation, the SUM coverage was fully offset. The regulations relied upon by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable as they were promulgated after the policy's effective date and the accident date.

SUM coverageArbitration stayInsurance policy offsetWorkers' Compensation offsetTortfeasor paymentsRetrospective applicationAppellate affirmationContract interpretationNew York lawUnderinsured motorist
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynolds v. Oster

This appeal concerns a Family Court order modifying a father's child support obligations. The Appellate Division modified the order, ruling that the father should receive an abatement for child support from the actual date his daughter became emancipated, rather than from the petition filing date, due to the mother's failure to disclose information. However, the court affirmed the finding that the father willfully violated prior support orders, noting his ability to pay despite claiming disability and receiving workers' compensation. Conversely, the upward modification of support granted by the Family Court was reversed, as the Appellate Division found insufficient evidence to establish a change in circumstances. The case was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Child SupportEmancipationChild Support ArrearsWillful ViolationUpward ModificationChange in CircumstancesEquitable EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BenefitsFamily Court ActAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.

The Chapter 11 debtor, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., moved to disallow James E. Parks' claim, arguing it was filed after the court-ordered bar date of October 30, 1990. Parks, a former customer, did not receive actual notice of the bar date, although the debtor was aware of his potential claim through letters from Legal Services. The court found that due process requires actual notice for known creditors and determined that the debtor had actual notice of Parks' asserted claim. Therefore, the court concluded that Parks was entitled to actual notice, which he did not receive, and granted an extension for his claim. Parks' proof of claim, filed on May 17, 1993, was deemed timely, and the debtor's motion to expunge was denied.

Bankruptcy LawProof of ClaimBar DateExcusable NeglectActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDue ProcessCreditors' RightsChapter 11Debtor in Possession
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Williams

Amoco Oil appealed two judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning arbitration for uninsured motorist and no-fault benefits. The first judgment, dated January 6, 1977, granted New Hampshire Insurance Company's application to stay arbitration, deeming Amoco Oil's coverage primary and New Hampshire's secondary for uninsured motorist benefits. The second judgment, dated March 30, 1977, permanently stayed arbitration for no-fault benefits under New Hampshire's policy. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments, concluding that the claimant was "occupying" the Amoco Oil vehicle, making Amoco Oil primarily liable for uninsured motorist benefits. However, the claimant was precluded from receiving these benefits due to already receiving workers' compensation benefits in excess of the maximum, and was also ineligible for no-fault benefits under the New Hampshire policy.

Insurance DisputeArbitration ProceedingsUninsured Motorist CoverageNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary vs Secondary LiabilityAppellate DivisionNassau County Supreme CourtVehicle OccupancyBenefit Eligibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. SAC 349462
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

QAHER MOKDADI vs. HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board clarified the commencement date for temporary disability payments under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). Applying its en banc decision in *Hawkins v. Amberwood Products*, the Board held that the two-year period for temporary disability payments begins on the date indemnity is *first paid* to the worker, not when it is first owed or when unemployment benefits are reimbursed. Therefore, the commencement date was established as November 9, 2006, the date the applicant received his first temporary disability indemnity check.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHendrick AutomotiveFederal Insurance CompanyQAHER MOKDADIauto service technicianleft shoulder and spine injuryEmployment Development Department (EDD)temporary disability indemnityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)date of commencement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2008

Aminzadeh v. Hyosung USA

The claimant, a machine operator, sustained a left hand injury in 2005. During treatment for this injury, she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in her left wrist. A separate claim for carpal tunnel syndrome was established as an unrelated occupational disease, with a disablement date of June 2007 by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier appealed the Board’s ruling on the date of disablement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the selection of June 2007 as the date of disablement was supported by substantial evidence, as the condition was objectively diagnosed then.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLeft Hand InjuryMachine OperatorMedical DiagnosisBoard Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,116 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