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. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. ADJ1377755 (FRE 0242857) ADJ1891281 (FRE 0242858)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

RUDOLPH GUTIERREZ vs. DERREL'S MINI STORAGE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE, CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Gutierrez's petition for reconsideration of a January 19, 2010 stipulation and order. Applicant contended the settlement was not secured with his consent. The Board treated his petition as a motion to set aside the award. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to consider the set-aside petition and conduct further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderPro SeAdministrative Law JudgeDismissedReturned to Trial LevelAwardConsent
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridgewood Savings Bank v. Houston (In Re Houston)

The debtor, Leonard W. Houston, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiff Ridgewood Savings Bank, holding a mortgage on the debtor's home, commenced an adversary proceeding to vacate the automatic stay to facilitate foreclosure. A default judgment was granted against the debtor for failure to appear, which he moved to set aside, citing excusable neglect due to an ankle injury. The case was remanded on appeal for further findings. The court found that while the debtor's failure to appear constituted excusable neglect, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as he lacked equity in the property and had not made mortgage payments or reimbursed the bank for taxes for an extended period, leading to a lack of adequate protection for the Bank. Consequently, the court denied the debtor's application to set aside the default judgment.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayDefault JudgmentForeclosureExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefenseAdequate ProtectionMortgage LienChapter 13Equity Cushion
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. ADJ3502038 (VNO 0531200) ADJ3850322 (VNO 0531201)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

MARIA DE LA LUZ PADILLA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (S&A) regarding applicant's neck, shoulder, and chest injuries. The defendant claimed mutual mistake and delays by applicant's attorney as grounds to set aside the S&A. However, the WCAB found these allegations insufficient to overturn the executed contract. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's separate petition to set aside the S&A, due to apparent procedural irregularities.

Stipulations and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseDelay in ApprovalService of DocumentEthical BreachesTrial Level ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tannenbaum v. Hofbauer

The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of their complaint, which sought damages for an alleged assault and battery perpetrated by unidentified men acting under the direction of Powers, a business agent of the defendant union during a strike. The plaintiff's evidence indicated the tortious act was committed by a union agent in furtherance of the strike. However, there was no evidence of official union authorization for the act, nor was the agent's unlawful activity sufficiently notorious or prolonged to infer knowledge and acquiescence from the union membership. Citing established precedent, the court reiterated that to hold a voluntary, unincorporated association liable, facts must prove all members are liable, either through a public act of the association or member-approved acts of its agents. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to bind the entire union membership, requiring clear and convincing evidence to identify the union with the individual acts. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

Assault and BatteryUnion LiabilityAgency LawVoluntary Unincorporated AssociationMembership LiabilityStrike ActionTortious ActDismissal of ComplaintMotion PracticeEvidence Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levitt v. Board of Collective Bargaining

The City of New York promulgated Personnel Policy and Procedure Bulletin number 401-86, requiring city employees to disclose and repay debts as a condition for appointment or promotion. Three unions challenged this policy before the Board of Collective Bargaining, asserting it constituted an improper labor practice as it unilaterally changed terms of employment without collective bargaining. The Board sided with the unions, ruling the city had acted improperly. The City then petitioned the court to set aside the Board's determination. The court granted the City's petition, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and arbitrary, concluding that the policy concerned management's fundamental right to set employee qualifications and maintain integrity, and was therefore exempt from mandatory collective bargaining. The court also critiqued the Board's balancing test regarding employee privacy rights.

Improper Labor PracticeCollective BargainingManagerial PrerogativeDebt CollectionEmployee QualificationsPublic EmployeesPrivacy RightsAdministrative CodeJudicial ReviewPERB
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Teitelbaum

This case addresses defendants', who are police officers, motion to set aside a verdict of guilty for bribe receiving and official misconduct. The motion was based on alleged improper conduct by Juror No. 3, Lillian Feeley, who did not disclose her volunteer affiliation with the Queens County District Attorney's office during jury selection. A post-trial hearing revealed that Feeley was a volunteer court watcher for a public relations program, had no contact with legal staff, and exhibited no pro-prosecutorial bias. The court found that Feeley did not intentionally withhold information and that her association was too remote to the prosecution by a special State prosecutor to constitute bias. Consequently, the court denied the motion for a new trial, determining that any irregularity was harmless and did not impact the verdict.

Juror MisconductVoir DireFair TrialImpartial JuryVerdict NullificationCPL 330.30District Attorney AffiliationCourt Watcher ProgramActual BiasPrejudice
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. Cross

This case involves a motion filed by defendants Cross and Olsen, as president and treasurer of the Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America, to set aside the service of summons or to dismiss the complaint. The defendants argued that as a foreign unincorporated association, it must be "doing business" in New York to be sued, similar to foreign corporations. The court examined the interpretation of Section 13 of the General Associations Law and distinguished between corporations and unincorporated associations, finding no requirement for the latter to be doing business in the state if statutory requirements for service are met. The court decided to retain jurisdiction over the first and second causes of action, which sought to compel payment of death benefits. However, it declined jurisdiction over the third cause of action, which sought to impress a trust on the International's assets, citing concerns about regulating internal affairs of a foreign entity and enforcing a decree. The motion was granted only to the extent of dismissing the third cause of action without prejudice.

JurisdictionService of SummonsUnincorporated AssociationForeign AssociationGeneral Associations LawCivil Practice ActForum Non ConveniensInternal Affairs DoctrineDismissal of Cause of ActionDeath Benefits
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,425 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