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 Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2004

Sojka v. 43 Wooster LLC

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a construction worker's injury. The defendant's insurance carrier, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage due to a delayed accident report. Subsequently, the law firm hired by the insurer to defend the defendant moved to withdraw as counsel. Initially, the motion was granted, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court ruled that a motion to withdraw is an improper method to challenge an insurer's disclaimer of coverage, which should instead be resolved through a declaratory judgment action.

Motion to withdrawDisclaimer of coverageInsurance carrierDeclaratory judgment actionAttorney-client relationshipAppellate court reversalConstruction accidentProperty owner liabilityTimeliness of reportingLegal procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Scarpelli v. Bevco Trucking Corp.

Claimant, aged 62, sustained a work-related back injury in February 1999, prompting his retirement the following day and the commencement of social security retirement benefits. Although he had planned to work part-time until age 65, he did not seek any employment post-injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to seek alternative work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, despite being deemed permanently partially disabled. The employer and carrier's contention regarding the untimeliness of the appeal was rejected. Ultimately, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary withdrawalLabor marketPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' CompensationAppeal timelinessMedical evidenceConflicting evidenceSocial security benefitsRetirementBack injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Claim of De Simone v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A claimant, after a 33-year career with the employer involving asbestos exposure, was diagnosed with a severe, permanent asbestos-related pulmonary and pleural disease by July 2000. He retired in May 2001 at age 55, informing his employer that his disability prevented him from continuing work. The employer challenged his eligibility for post-retirement benefits, asserting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found a causal link between his disability and retirement, awarding him benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant's retirement was not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Asbestos ExposureOccupational DiseasePulmonary AsbestosPleural DiseaseRetirement BenefitsVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketSubstantial EvidenceCausationDisability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lombardo v. Ford Motor Co.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1996, eventually stopping work despite available light duty and later retiring. The employer argued that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, thus forfeiting benefits. The Board found that the claimant did not voluntarily withdraw. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported a connection between the claimant's disability and his retirement, making his withdrawal involuntary. The court also noted that the employer's argument regarding the claimant's post-retirement job-seeking efforts was not preserved for review.

Workers' CompensationLabor MarketVoluntary WithdrawalDisabilityRetirementLight DutyBack InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

Claim of Amicola v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, an employee of New York Telephone, sustained a low back injury in December 1992 and underwent disc repair surgery. After returning to light duty, he experienced increased back pain, and despite his physician's direction to stop working, he applied for an early retirement incentive program in May 1994, which was granted the following month. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market due to his early retirement. The Court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support that the claimant elected to retire, influenced by a significant financial incentive, despite his injury. The decision emphasized that the availability of workers' compensation benefits would not cease with retirement, further supporting the voluntary nature of his withdrawal.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementDisabilityBack InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFinancial Incentive
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 430 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