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 the Estate of Green

This proceeding involves an uncontested application for leave to settle and compromise a wrongful death action stemming from a fire on December 4, 1980, which resulted in the death of the decedent, survived by a spouse and three children. The proposed structured settlement totals $5,650,000, comprising a cash payment and annuities purchased through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, designed to provide guaranteed periodic payments of $37,674,000. The court addresses several issues, including the propriety of attorney's fees, the allocation of annuity costs among beneficiaries based on the Kaiser formula, and potential modifications to equalize shares among the children. The court found the proposed allocation unacceptable as it granted the widow significantly more than her Kaiser share and penalized the children, and also identified drawbacks in the guardian ad litem's suggestion due to its impact on the youngest child from inflation and a substantial reduction in their Kaiser entitlement. The decision concludes by proposing modifications to the guardian's plan, including increasing annual support and adjusting shares between the middle and youngest child, and ultimately remands the matter for reconsideration due to the changes affecting the parties and the widow's annuity.

Wrongful Death SettlementStructured SettlementAnnuity AllocationPecuniary LossDependency PeriodBeneficiary SharesKaiser FormulaGuardian Ad LitemAttorney's FeesEstate Distribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill v. Moultrie

A New York City police officer, injured in an auto accident, settled a third-party action. To preserve his workers' compensation rights, he sought a nunc pro tunc compromise order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which was granted on January 11, 1990. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, noting that the delay in obtaining the order was not due to the petitioner's fault and did not prejudice the city, especially since the third-party settlement was for the full policy limit. The court also found satisfactory compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [5], despite minor technical omissions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise and SettlementThird-Party ActionPolice Officer InjuryAuto AccidentAppellate AffirmationStatutory ComplianceLack of PrejudiceInsurance Policy Limit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Muccini

The Surrogate's Court considered a petition to compromise a wrongful death action and settle the administratrix's account. The decedent, a construction foreman, was fatally injured in 1980, survived by his spouse and four sons. A structured settlement was reached with multiple defendants for a court-determined present value of $1,246,578. The court approved the settlement but modified the distribution of proceeds to align with the Kaiser formula and addressed attorneys' fees. It ruled that attorneys' fees should be paid proportionally with the structured settlement receipts, rather than a large upfront sum, to protect the distributees' interests, especially the minor children, and directed proper handling of funds for infant distributees.

Wrongful DeathStructured SettlementAttorneys' FeesInfant DistributeesEstate AdministrationKaiser FormulaSurrogate's CourtGuardian ad litemPresent ValueSettlement Distribution
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallin v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Plaintiff moved to set aside a jury verdict in an asbestos-related wrongful death and product liability case against Owens-Illinois, Inc., the sole remaining defendant after five others had settled. The jury had allocated percentages of liability to Owens-Illinois and the settling co-defendants, Eagle-Picher and Keene Corporation. Plaintiff argued that the jury's allocation of liability to the settling defendants was unwarranted by the evidence. The court, applying a strict standard for overturning jury verdicts, reviewed the trial record and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding exposure to the settling co-defendants' asbestos products. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.

Asbestos ExposureWrongful Death ClaimProduct LiabilityJury Verdict ChallengePost-Trial MotionsNew York General Obligations LawComparative FaultRule 50(b)Settling DefendantsApportionment of Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Findley v. Falise

This 'AMENDED MEMORANDUM, ORDER, AND JUDGMENT' addresses an unresolved issue from a class action settlement against the Manville Trust, concerning the allocation of payment responsibility under Maryland law. Following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the New York district and bankruptcy courts were mandated to predict how the Maryland Court of Appeals would apply set-off principles to this unique settlement. The courts considered arguments from various parties, including proposals for treating the Manville Trust, which is solvent but unable to fully meet its liabilities. Ultimately, the decision was to interpret Maryland law as excluding the Manville Trust from pro rata share calculations for other settling defendants, while crediting amounts settled by the Trust to non-settling joint tortfeasors. This ruling, detailed in Part V.A of the Order, aims to equitably balance the interests of all parties while adhering to Maryland law principles given the distinct circumstances of the Trust.

Asbestos LitigationClass Action SettlementManville TrustMaryland LawSet-off PrinciplesJoint TortfeasorsFederal Court JurisdictionAbstention DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentTort Law
References
23
Case No. ADJ7726177
Regular
Feb 08, 2019

DEMETRIUS CERRILLO vs. THE HOME DEPOT

The applicant sought reconsideration of a compromise and release agreement settling his workers' compensation claim for $15,000. He alleged he was pressured by an Information and Assistance officer and the WCJ to settle, and that the settlement terms were not adequately explained. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature because the applicant failed to verify the petition and did not provide sworn testimony to support his allegations of duress or manipulation. The matter was remanded to the trial level for a hearing on the applicant's contentions to establish an evidentiary record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDemetrius CerrilloThe Home DepotLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyHelmsman Management ServicesADJ7726177Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise & ReleaseInformation and Assistance (I&A) officerWCJ
References
11
Case No. ADJ4349754 (OXN 124391)
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

JOSE TOSTADO vs. JM SMUCKER COMPANY, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a $\$ 2500$ sanction imposed on defense counsel by a Workers' Compensation Judge. The defense argued the sanction was settled by a Compromise and Release, lacked evidence, and infringed on attorney-client privilege. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the sanction was not settled by the C&R and that claims of privilege did not excuse the misrepresentation. The WCJ found the attorney misrepresented the filing of a Medicare Set Aside analysis, constituting a sanctionable offense despite claims of reasonable belief or privilege.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMSDeclaration of ReadinessAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisrepresentationOfficer of the Court
References
0
Case No. ADJ2897340 (VNO 0425114)
Regular
Dec 27, 2013

BLANCHE ALFI vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant who filed two liens with similar names for the same pharmacy. The WCJ dismissed one lien for failure to pay the activation fee, while the other, correctly paid, was settled. The lien claimant sought reconsideration, arguing the dismissal was moot because they paid the fee for the settled lien and that the dismissal order was invalid. The Board dismissed the petition, finding the lien claimant was not aggrieved by the dismissal and that the separate orders did not invalidate the settlement. The Board also admonished the claimant for wasting judicial resources with their filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien Activation FeeLabor Code section 4903.06(a)(4)WCJNegotiated SettlementIndustrial InjuryPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ634371
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MARIA MORALES vs. UNIVERSAL FURNITURE, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a judge's decision regarding a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The applicant argued her claim for internal injury was not settled by the C&R, as it was not explicitly listed in the designated paragraph. The WCAB found that the C&R, when read as a whole, did not resolve the internal injury claim, despite general release language. The Board rescinded the judge's decision, ruling the internal injury claim was not settled by the June 13, 2016 C&R.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationInternal InjuryCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryBody PartsDates of InjuryGeneral ReleaseRes Judicata
References
8
Case No. ADJ11225659
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

TERESA VENTURA vs. DANA POINT CLEANERS' AMTRUST, ZENITH INSURANCE

This case concerns a dispute over whether a Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement settled an applicant's claim against Zenith Insurance Company. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the C&R, which named only Wasco Insurance Company (administered by Amtrust), did not settle Zenith's liability. Zenith was not a party to the C&R, and the agreement did not explicitly include Zenith, while Wasco specifically reserved its right to seek contribution from Zenith. The Board also rejected Wasco's due process argument, finding its interest in the trial regarding Zenith's liability was insufficient to grant standing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseZenith Insurance CompanyAmtrust North AmericaWasco Insurance CompanyFindings and OrderWCJLabor Code Section 5005Cumulative Trauma Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 472 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