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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gallo v. Village of Bronxville Police Department

Claimant, a police sergeant, filed for workers' compensation benefits after suffering a myocardial infarction on December 18, 2008. He experienced symptoms after exercising and ascending stairs at work, leading to a diagnosis of myocardial infarction. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the infarction was caused by the stair climbing and arose out of his employment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's ruling, citing substantial medical evidence from two cardiologists who opined that the work-related stair climbing precipitated the myocardial infarction, even with a preexisting coronary artery disease.

myocardial infarctionwork-related injuryworkers' compensationaccidental injurymedical causationpreexisting conditionstair climbingpolice sergeantappealBoard decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Elias v. New York City Human Resources Administration

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits claim, filed on March 10, 1987, was timely. This decision came despite the claimant's initial failure to provide timely written notice, which was excused because the employer had actual notice of the injury. The claimant suffered a back injury on October 15, 1985, while at work, pushing a file cabinet. The Board found that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 did not bar the claim. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling in favor of the claimant.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimely NoticeActual NoticeBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAppealExcused NoticeOccupational Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 10 Civ. 7394; 10 Civ. 7387
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. OPPENHEIMER FUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC.

Plaintiff Bradley C. Smith brought two derivative actions under the Investment Company Act (ICA) against Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals Fund and Oppenheimer Quest for Value Funds, along with their trustees and OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc. (OFDI). Smith alleged violations of ICA Section 47(b) based on predicate violations of ICA Section 36(a) and SEC Rule 38a-l, arguing that asset-based compensation paid to broker-dealers violated the Investment Advisers Act (IAA). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that ICA Section 47(b) does not create a private right of action for substantive ICA provisions that lack one. Neither ICA Section 36(a) nor SEC Rule 38a-l were found to imply a private right of action. As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish a viable predicate violation for his Section 47(b) claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Investment Company ActInvestment Advisers ActMutual FundsBroker-DealersFiduciary DutyPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissSecurities LawSupplemental JurisdictionRule 12b-1
References
29
Case No. ADJ8608456 MF\nADJ8608504\nADJ8523009\nADJ8551858\nADJ8609068
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

HORACIO CABRERA, Deceased MARIBEL BARAJAS, Widow, Guardian Ad\nLitem for LITZY CABRERA, LESLY\nCABRERA, MARIA CABRERA AND\nKASSANDRA CABRERA; BRIANNA\nCABRERA, for herself and Guardian Ad Litem for STEFANI ARIAS, ANTONIO SOLARES, MODESTO DOMINGUEZ, JOHNATHAN ALONSO vs. MV CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of a ruling finding a fatal motor vehicle accident and related injuries industrial. The employer argued the administrative law judge erred in admitting evidence and presuming compensability due to a failure to issue timely denial notices. The employer also contended the "going and coming rule" barred the claims as the accident occurred during a standard commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings that the injuries were industrial and not barred by the going and coming rule, largely adopting the judge's reasoning.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionRulings and Order Admitting EvidenceFindings of FactMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuriesFatal Industrial InjuryDependentsNotice of Denial
References
0
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. CA 10-02440
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMP v. BRADY FARMS, INC.

Plaintiff Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Brady Farms, Inc. regarding fatal injuries to an employee, as defendant lacked workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the defendant, obligating the plaintiff. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision, holding that the defendant's liability stemmed from its failure to secure workers' compensation benefits, a statutory obligation, rather than directly from the bodily injury. Consequently, the court found no coverage under the plaintiff's Special Farm Package "10" policy and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Insurance CoverageWorkers' CompensationDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentStatutory LiabilityFarm Insurance PolicyAppellate ReviewExclusion Clause
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,699 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