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

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.

The plaintiff, BTG, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Genentech, Rogers & Wells, and John Kidd, seeking a declaration of patent invalidity and non-infringement, coupled with claims of unfair competition, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, antitrust violations, and prima facie tort under New York law. The defendants moved to dismiss claims 2 and 5-12 of the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing all aforementioned claims. The ruling found that Genentech's prior ITC action was not objectively baseless and thus protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity, preventing BTG's antitrust and related state common law claims. Additionally, the court affirmed that ITC determinations, while having preclusive effect on certain issues, do not preempt federal district courts' exclusive jurisdiction over patent validity.

Antitrust LawPatent LawDeclaratory JudgmentsMotion to DismissSham LitigationNoerr-Pennington DoctrineMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessPrima Facie TortUnfair Competition
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. ADJ1384238 (SAC 0366460)
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

ROSA VIRGEN vs. MACY'S WEST, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES-RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's West's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision not to grant a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found that a late supplemental report alone does not mandate a replacement QME under LC 4062.5 or AD Rule 31.5(a)(12). Granting a replacement QME for untimely supplemental reporting is discretionary and requires a showing of good cause, which Macy's failed to demonstrate. The Appeals Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of replacement panels.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluationPQMEReplacement PanelMedical DirectorTimelinessSupplemental ReportGood CausePrejudice
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. Dick

The Trustee of Bermec Corp. sued Arthur Andersen & Co. for negligence, among other claims. Andersen moved for partial summary judgment, asserting the negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The parties had an agreement extending the limitation period if an action was "instituted" by March 31, 1974. Although the complaint was filed on March 21, 1974, Andersen was not served until April 2, 1974. The court ruled that under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 203(b)5, a claim is timely if the summons and complaint are delivered to the appropriate officer and served within sixty days. Applying this state law principle, the court found the action was timely instituted and denied Andersen's motion for partial summary judgment.

Statute of LimitationsNegligencePartial Summary JudgmentFederal Bankruptcy ActCommencement of ActionService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesErie DoctrinePendent Jurisdiction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,170 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