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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1991

Square D Co. v. Schneider S.A.

Plaintiff Square D Company alleged that defendant Schneider, S.A. and its affiliates were engaged in an illegal plan to acquire Square D through a hostile tender offer and proxy fight. Square D filed an Amended and Supplemental Complaint, claiming violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants moved to dismiss these counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing lack of standing and flaws in the plaintiff's legal theories. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, affirming Square D's standing to bring the antitrust claims and accepting the 'agency theory' for Section 8 liability at this preliminary stage. The Court also denied the defendants' application for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), citing the expedited schedule of the case and the potential for hindering resolution.

Antitrust LawClayton ActSherman ActHostile TakeoverProxy FightCorporate AcquisitionMotion to DismissAntitrust InjuryStandingInterlocking Directorates
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. ADJ10344350; ADJ10344309
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

JUAN SALAZAR vs. MAYWOOD PLAZA MARKET, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concerning lien claimants Industrial Healthcare PMG, Complete Interpreting, and Peralta Hills-Mission Valley Imaging. The WCJ had dismissed their liens, finding their declarations under Labor Code section 4903.8(d) invalid. The WCAB, however, found that the declarant, Ilona Kulikova, possessed sufficient personal knowledge and access to information to competently testify regarding the services provided and billing accuracy. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Orders and substituted new findings declaring the lien claimants' original section 4903.8(d) declarations valid, thus remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 4903.8(d)Lien claimantsDeclarationsCompetent to testifyPrima facie evidenceBurden of proofIndustrial Healthcare PMGComplete InterpretingPeralta Hills-Mission Valley ImagingIlona Kulikova
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. ADJ1474695
Regular
Apr 12, 2019

IRIS TABORA vs. HARBOR BUILDING SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns lien claimants whose liens were filed before January 1, 2013. The WCJ initially invalidated their liens for failing to submit declarations under Labor Code section 4903.8(d). However, the Appeals Board rescinded this order, finding that section 4903.8(e) does not apply to pre-2013 liens. The matter was returned to the trial level to allow the lien claimants to submit compliant declarations and for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 4903.8Lien ClaimantsDeclarationReconsiderationMinute OrderWCJInvalid LiensSubstantial JusticeCompromise and Release
References
2
Case No. ADJ9063212
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

LUIS VILLAGOMEZ vs. WALMART STORES, INC.; ACE AMERICAN, administered by YORK

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved liens filed by Mesa Pharmacy and ResHealth Medical, which were deemed invalid by the WCJ under Labor Code section 4903.8(e). Lien claimants sought reconsideration, arguing the WCJ incorrectly placed the burden of proof regarding declarant competency on them. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board clarified that declarants under section 4903.8(d) must have personal knowledge of the services provided and billing accuracy. It also noted that all submitted declarations, not just one, should be considered when evaluating compliance with the statute.

Labor Code section 4903.8(e)declarant competencypersonal knowledgehearsaypenalty of perjurylien validityworkers' compensation liensassignment violationreconsiderationFindings of Fact and Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 5,215 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