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

Nassau Insurance v. Ebin

The petitioner sought to renew and reconsider a prior motion to stay arbitration of a no-fault insurance claim. The court had previously determined that threshold issues concerning conditions precedent for no-fault recovery fall under arbitration, not judicial review, citing broad arbitration provisions in the Insurance Law. Petitioner contended non-compliance with notice requirements and an unconstitutional deprivation of contractual and property rights. The court upheld its original decision, finding the arbitration provisions reasonable and consistent with the no-fault law's goal of reducing court congestion, with due process rights protected by CPLR 7511. The motion to renew and reconsider was granted, but the denial of the motion to stay arbitration was adhered to.

ArbitrationNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessPolice PowerContractual RightsProperty RightsJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Global Marine, Inc.

Jeffrey Paul Bailey filed suit against Gator Hawk, Inc. for damages allegedly sustained while working on an offshore drill site. Gator Hawk moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Jones Act claims, limiting recovery to LHWCA, and dismissing Champlin Petroleum Company's cross-claim. The Court previously denied summary judgment but allowed Gator Hawk to re-urge the motion. This Memorandum and Order addresses Gator Hawk's Motion to Reconsider Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court determined that Bailey did not qualify as a seaman under the Jones Act, based on the Fifth Circuit's 'Robison' criteria, as he spent less than 10% of his work time on vessels and was not permanently assigned to an identifiable fleet. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for Gator Hawk on the Jones Act claim, dismissing Bailey's claims under 46 U.S.C.App. § 688. Decisions regarding Bailey's status under LHWCA and Champlin's cross-claim were reserved pending further briefing.

Jones ActLHWCASeaman StatusMaritime EmploymentSummary JudgmentOffshore DrillingWellpipe TestingFifth Circuit PrecedentOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActPersonal Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraci v. Hickey-Freeman Company, Inc.

Mr. Faraci, the plaintiff, filed a Title VII Civil Rights action against his employer, Hickey-Freeman Company, Inc., for unlawful dismissal based on national origin, and against his Union for inadequate defense, also due to national origin. Initially, the court dismissed the complaint against the Union on September 8, 1975, citing Mr. Faraci's failure to join the Union in the New York State Human Rights Division proceedings, a jurisdictional prerequisite. Mr. Faraci requested a rehearing, arguing that despite not explicitly naming the Union, his communication to the Division implicitly included a complaint against them. The court, acknowledging Mr. Faraci's handicaps in law and English, and noting that the Division itself failed to recognize the complaint against the Union as discrimination based on national origin, decided to reconsider. Ultimately, the court reversed its previous dismissal, reinstating the action against the Union by construing Mr. Faraci's attempt to proceed before the Division as sufficient compliance with deferral requirements, emphasizing that technicalities should not hinder laypersons in such statutory schemes.

Title VIICivil RightsNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to ReconsiderJurisdictional PrerequisiteState Human Rights LawEEOC ChargePro Se LitigantDeferral Requirement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ward

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas denied a debtor's motion to reconsider an order denying her request to incur new debt for a used car. Debtor Chinique Ward sought to purchase a vehicle with a 20.25% interest rate from Reid’s Auto Connection, a dealership known for targeting bankruptcy debtors, after her original car was repossessed. The court found the proposed financing unreasonable and not in the debtor's best interest, especially given the dealership had provided the car and paid the debtor's attorney fees without prior court approval. The judge ordered the unwinding of the transaction, mandating the return of payments and the car, and highlighted increased scrutiny for future post-petition borrowing requests due to concerns over predatory practices. This decision underscores the court's role as a gatekeeper for chapter 13 debtors' post-confirmation financial activities, particularly regarding significant debt incurrence.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyPost-Petition DebtCar FinancingMotion to Incur DebtReconsideration DenialHigh Interest RatesPredatory LendingAttorney Fee DisclosureUnwinding TransactionDebtor's Rehabilitation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
Case No. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. 03-98-00471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1998

Arena Football League v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

This appeal arises from a no-answer default judgment signed June 25, 1997. The central issue is the finality of that judgment, which did not explicitly address pre-judgment interest or attorney's fees. The appellant filed a 'Motion to Reconsider' in March 1998, which was overruled in August 1998, followed by a notice of appeal. The court determined that the appellee had waived claims for attorney's fees and pre-judgment interest on the record before the 1997 judgment, making it final. Consequently, the trial court lost plenary power thirty days after the judgment, rendering the motion to reconsider and the subsequent appeal untimely. The appeal was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Default JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionFinality of JudgmentWaiver of ClaimsTimeliness of AppealMotion to ReconsiderTexas Court of AppealsCivil ProcedureTravis CountyWorkers' Compensation
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07194 [167 AD3d 142]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.

This appeal concerns an arbitration dispute between American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Allied Capital Corporation regarding insurance coverage for a $10.1 million settlement. An arbitration panel initially issued a Partial Final Award (PFA) on liability but later reconsidered and reversed its decision, leading to a corrected PFA and a final award. AISLIC petitioned to vacate these subsequent awards and confirm the original PFA. The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority under the functus officio doctrine by reconsidering its prior final determination on liability. Consequently, the corrected PFA and the final award were vacated, and the original PFA was reinstated.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardVacaturInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrator AuthorityLiabilityDamages
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Al-Sadoon v. FISI MADISON FINANCIAL CORP.

The court addressed the defendant's Motion to Reconsider, which sought to challenge a prior denial of summary judgment on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and for retaliatory discharge. The court first ruled the motion untimely based on Local Rule 8(b)(3), as it was filed beyond the prescribed twenty-day limit. Furthermore, on the merits, the court determined that the defendant's ADA argument constituted an improper second summary judgment motion relying on previously available evidence, not a valid basis for reconsideration. Regarding the retaliatory discharge claim, the court found no clear error of law or overlooked material facts in its earlier decision that established a genuine issue of causation. Consequently, the defendant's motion to reconsider was denied on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Motion to ReconsiderSummary JudgmentADARetaliatory DischargeTimelinessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureLocal RulesDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawSixth Circuit
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niziol v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a workers' compensation case to determine if a lump sum award, granted under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231, could be reconsidered and increased under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2) after an employee's loss of employment. Employee Christopher Niziol suffered a back injury while working for Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., receiving a $35,000 lump sum settlement based on 27.99% permanent partial disability. After Niziol's termination, he sought to increase his award, which the trial court granted, raising it to 50% permanent partial disability. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed, citing the finality of lump sum awards. Relying on the precedent set in Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Panel's decision, reinstating the trial court's judgment, affirming that lump sum awards can be reconsidered and enlarged under § 241(a)(2) regardless of the reason for job loss.

Workers' CompensationLump Sum AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationReconsideration of AwardLoss of EmploymentIndustrial DisabilityTenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2)Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-231Appeals Panel Reversal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 332 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