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

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

This appeal addresses the constitutional challenges brought by trade associations representing automobile manufacturers against New York's New Car Lemon Law alternative arbitration mechanism and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs argued that General Business Law § 198-a (k) unconstitutionally deprived manufacturers of their right to a jury trial, access to Supreme Court, and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority. The court ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies, particularly vehicle replacement, are equitable, thus preserving the right to a jury trial. It also upheld the arbitration mechanism as a reasonable alternative for dispute resolution, affirming its constitutionality regarding court access and delegation of authority. However, the court found one implementing regulation, 13 NYCRR 300.17 (c), invalid as it contravened the statute by precluding evidence of further repairs, effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of liability.

Constitutional LawArbitrationLemon LawConsumer ProtectionGeneral Business LawRight to Jury TrialEquitable RemediesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alternative Electrodes, LLC v. Empi, Inc.

Plaintiff Alternative Electrodes, LLC (AEL) sued Empi, Inc. and Encore Medical, L.P. for violations of the Lanham Act, Sherman Act, and various New York state laws, including illegal monopoly, false advertising, and tortious interference. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except the Lanham Act claim. The court denied dismissal for AEL's Sherman Act, Donnelly Act, and breach of contract claims, finding sufficient allegations of antitrust injury, market definition, and breach of a settlement agreement. However, the state law claims for business disparagement/injurious falsehood and tortious interference were dismissed without prejudice, as AEL failed to adequately plead special damages and 'but for' causation, respectively. The civil conspiracy claim, alleged as an independent tort, was also dismissed.

Antitrust LawSherman ActLanham ActBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Monopoly Power
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Louis

This judicial opinion addresses a claim by Consultants for Criminal Justice Alternatives (CCJA) for $1,260 in compensation, under County Law § 722-c, for 28 hours of prepleading and presentence 'other than counsel services' provided to an un-named criminal defendant. Judge Budd G. Goodman approved 27 hours of service but reduced the hourly rate from $45 to $30, awarding $810. The court denied compensation for clerical activities. The decision extensively discussed criteria for 'reasonable compensation' based on service provider qualifications and service nature, and affirmed the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' allowing compensation above the $300 statutory limit.

Compensation ClaimCounty Law § 722-cOther Than Counsel ServicesPrepleading ReportPresentence ReportExtraordinary CircumstancesHourly Rate DeterminationParaprofessional ServicesCriminal DefenseSocial Work Standards
References
4
Case No. 05-CV-4115
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2008

UFCW Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health & Welfare Fund v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Institutional plaintiffs, primarily third-party payors, filed a class action lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Company. They alleged that Lilly fraudulently marketed its antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, by misrepresenting its safety and efficacy, downplaying serious side effects like weight gain and diabetes, and promoting off-label uses. The lawsuit claimed these actions led to overpayments for Zyprexa prescriptions. The court certified a class of third-party payors on federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims, specifically for alleged overpricing of Zyprexa during the period of June 20, 2001, to June 20, 2005. Individual payor claims were denied class certification due to potential conflicts of interest, and state consumer protection claims were deferred. The court's decision emphasized that common questions of law and fact predominated, making a class action a superior and manageable method for adjudication.

Class ActionRICO ClaimsPharmaceutical FraudDrug MisrepresentationOff-Label MarketingZyprexa LitigationAntipsychotic DrugsThird-Party Payor ClaimsConsumer ProtectionEconomic Damages
References
82
Case No. ADJ10574278
Regular
Oct 08, 2018

SERGIO GUTIERREZ vs. STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION CONCEPTS, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous decision, and returned the case for further development of the record. The WCAB found the prior judge erred in solely attributing the applicant's temporary disability to the defendant, Structural Alternative Solution Concepts. Medical evidence suggests the applicant may have sustained multiple cumulative injuries during subsequent employment. The WCAB mandates a review of potential consolidation of cases and requires medical evaluators to provide an analysis regarding the number and causation of injuries.

Cumulative injuryPetition for reconsiderationAgreed medical evaluatorTemporary disabilityCausationIndustrial injuryLeft elbowLeft bicep tendonLeft shoulderLow back
References
12
Case No. 05-19154-jf
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Bridge to Life, Inc.

The Bridge To Life, Inc. ("Bridge") filed a Chapter 11 petition for the second time, despite a prior dismissal with prejudice. The court sua sponte dismissed the second case, leading Bridge to file a motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, a stay pending appeal. Bridge argued that the bar to refiling no longer applied as the underlying state court action against it had been dismissed. The court denied Bridge's motion, ruling that the refiling violated a prior injunction and constituted a misuse of Chapter 11. The court found that Bridge's Chapter 11 filings were primarily litigation tactics to gain advantage in a two-party dispute with William Lucadamo and to avoid enforcement of a sanctions judgment, rather than for legitimate reorganization purposes. The court emphasized that Chapter 11 should not be used to frustrate non-bankruptcy forums or to avoid supersedeas bonds.

BankruptcyChapter 11Motion for ReconsiderationStay Pending AppealBad Faith FilingLitigation TacticTwo-Party DisputePrior DismissalInjunction ViolationSanctions Judgment
References
19
Case No. ADJ9257767
Regular
Aug 28, 2014

JILL ALES vs. DRUG ABUSE ALTERNATIVE CENTER, CYPRESS INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMES STATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in the case of Jill Ales versus Drug Abuse Alternative Center. The Board adopted the WCJ's report as the basis for this denial. However, the Board noted that a change of venue might be considered if trial is required and specific listed witnesses must testify.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportChange of VenueDenial of RemovalDrug Abuse Alternative CenterCypress InsuranceBerkshire HathawayADJ9257767Anaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re General Motors Corp.

This Bench Decision addresses motions for § 158(d)(2) certification to the Circuit and, alternatively, for a stay pending appeal of a July 5 Order in the bankruptcy proceedings of GM and its affiliates. Presiding Judge Robert E. Gerber denied both motions, finding the conditions for direct appeal to the Circuit were not met due to controlling precedent in the Second Circuit and the lack of a question of public importance that had not already been decided. Regarding the stay request, the court determined that the movants failed to establish a substantial possibility of success on the merits. Granting a stay would inflict catastrophic and irreparable harm upon GM, its multitude of creditors, 225,000 employees, 500,000 retirees, 11,500 suppliers, 6,000 dealers, and the broader North American auto industry, outweighing any potential harm to the appellants. The decision emphasized the critical public interest in allowing GM's essential asset sale to proceed without delay to avoid immediate liquidation.

Bankruptcy AppealSection 158(d)(2) CertificationRule 8005 StayEquitable Mootness DoctrineSuccessor LiabilityPublic Interest FactorsIrreparable HarmCorporate LiquidationCreditors' CommitteeJudicial Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelleher v. New York State Trooper Fearon

Plaintiff Eugene Kelleher brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Denzil Fearon, a New York State Trooper, for damages resulting from an unlawful strip search. A jury found Fearon liable and awarded Kelleher $125,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, a new trial or remittitur. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, upholding the jury's finding that Fearon was not entitled to qualified immunity, as there was sufficient evidence to infer he lacked objective reasonable suspicion for the strip search. However, the court granted the motion for remittitur, reducing the jury's award to $25,000, citing a lack of corroborating medical evidence for Kelleher's emotional distress.

Strip SearchQualified ImmunityExcessive ForceEmotional Distress DamagesRemittiturJury AwardCivil RightsAutomobile PresumptionProbable CauseFalse Arrest
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Esposito v. Petruzzi

The dissenting opinion argues for the rationality of the Workers’ Compensation Board's narrow definition of "party" and "party in interest," which excludes a claimant’s no-fault carrier from having standing to seek review. This stance is based on the premise that the no-fault carrier lacks a direct, enforceable interest in the compensation award. While permitting a no-fault carrier to participate at the hearing level to build the administrative record, the dissent contends it is logical to deny them the right to appeal, thereby recognizing their indirect financial stake without granting full party status. Regulatory provisions from the Board and Insurance Department are cited to support this view, noting that no-fault carriers are not listed for notice of hearings and are explicitly stated as "not a party to such a hearing." Furthermore, the dissent suggests that limited involvement at the WCLJ hearing would not preclude the carrier from pursuing employee status in an alternate forum. Despite this dissent, the overall decision was reversed by the court.

Workers' Compensation LawNo-Fault InsuranceStanding to AppealIndependent Contractor StatusAppellate ProcedureDissenting OpinionBoard Decision ReviewInsurer ParticipationParty in InterestAdministrative Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 835 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