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

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

Enron Corp. v. Citigroup, Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.)

This case concerns Arthur Andersen LLP's motion to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against it by Barclays PLC and its affiliated entities. Andersen argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint. The original adversary proceeding was initiated by Enron Corp. against Barclays and other banks, alleging various common law claims. Barclays, in turn, sought contribution from Andersen, claiming Andersen knowingly played a role in misrepresentations in Enron's financial statements. The court ultimately concluded that bankruptcy courts cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and therefore, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Barclays' third-party complaint, leading to its dismissal.

Subject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy CourtThird-Party ComplaintMotion to DismissCore ProceedingsNon-Core ProceedingsRelated to JurisdictionArticle III PowersBankruptcy Code
References
21
Case No. ADJ7796275
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

MORTEN ANDERSEN vs. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS, Atlanta Falcons, New York Giants, Kansas City Chiefs, Minnesota Vikings

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed California's subject matter jurisdiction over Morten Andersen's cumulative injury claim as a professional athlete, due to sufficient work performed in the state. However, the WCAB rescinded the prior finding that liability related back to the New Orleans Saints, Andersen's first employer. This was because Labor Code section 5500.5 mandates liability be allocated to employers during the year preceding the last date of injurious exposure, and the Saints did not employ Andersen during that period. The case was returned to the trial level to join subsequent employers and properly allocate liability under section 5500.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubject Matter JurisdictionIndustrial InjuryProfessional AthleteCumulative InjuryRelation Back DoctrineLabor Code Section 5500.5EmployersLiability AllocationInjurious Exposure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Axel Johnson, Inc. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.

Axel Johnson, Inc. moved under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) for relief from the dismissal of its securities fraud complaint against Arthur Andersen & Co. The complaint was dismissed as time-barred under the Supreme Court's *Lampf* decision, which established a new retroactive statute of limitations. Johnson's motion is predicated on the newly enacted § 27A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which purports to 'undo' *Lampf*'s retroactive application. Arthur Andersen opposed, arguing § 27A violates the separation of powers doctrine and is unconstitutional. The court granted Johnson's motion, finding § 27A constitutional as it established a new and generally applicable rule for pre-existing cases, thereby not constituting an impermissible legislative reversal of a judicial decision. As a result, both Johnson's federal and related state claims were reinstated.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsRetroactive ApplicationSeparation of PowersDue ProcessVested RightsRule 60(b)Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991Section 27APendent Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Achtman v. Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP

Plaintiffs, a class of purchasers of Bennett Funding Group (BFG) securities, brought a legal malpractice class action against their former co-lead class counsel, Kirby, Mclnerney & Squire, LLP and Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant law firms were negligent for failing to name Arthur Andersen, BFG's auditor, as a defendant in the underlying securities litigation. They contended that Andersen's involvement in BFG's alleged Ponzi scheme and subsequent withdrawal of its opinion on BFG's financial statements should have made them a target in the original suit, and the defendants' failure to pursue claims against Andersen resulted in plaintiffs being barred from recovery. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege negligence. The Court reasoned that the defendants' decision not to sue Andersen was a reasonable exercise of professional judgment, citing the unclear legal landscape regarding auditor liability at the time, potential issues with proving damages and class certification for various claims, and the adequacy of the Notice of Pendency issued to class members.

Legal malpracticeClass actionSecurities litigationProfessional judgmentMotion to dismissAttorney negligenceAuditor liabilityStatute of limitationsProximate causeDuty of care
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1994

Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.

This case involves Whirlpool Corporation seeking to confirm a foreign arbitral award against Philips Electronics N.V., while Philips moved to dismiss or stay the action pending further arbitration. The dispute arose from a joint venture and subsequent acquisition of Philips' Argentine MDA operations by Whirlpool, specifically concerning the revaluation of fixed assets and the applicable accounting policies under their Reorganization and Purchase Agreement (RPA) and Amendment No. 1. An initial arbitration before Arthur Andersen & Co. ruled in favor of Whirlpool, determining that Schedule G of the RPA, which limited asset revaluation, applied despite Philips' arguments for a different "Schedule G (Argentina)." The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, affirmed Andersen's jurisdiction and the validity of its binding award. Consequently, Whirlpool's motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award was granted, and Philips' motion to dismiss or stay the action was denied.

Arbitral Award ConfirmationForeign ArbitrationContract DisputeAccounting PoliciesAsset ValuationJoint VentureCorporate AcquisitionFederal Arbitration ActDispute ResolutionJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
20
Case No. ADJ1213955
Regular
Nov 10, 2011

JEFF ANDERSEN vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Applicant's Petition for Removal. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, which is an extraordinary remedy. The Applicant sought removal after the administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered the case off calendar to allow for further discovery from a medical expert. The WCJ ruled that the requested discovery was relevant to the issue of medical probability, the reason the case was initially un-submitted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferencePanel QMEDr. Kaminskymedical probabilityinjury AOE/COEskin cancerdiscovery closureDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
3
Case No. GOL 0093796
Regular
Apr 19, 2007

John Andersen vs. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Court of Appeal held that the City of Santa Barbara violated Labor Code section 132a by requiring an employee injured on the job to use vacation time for medical appointments while allowing others to use sick leave. While upholding the Board's decisions on permanent disability and apportionment, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine penalties and costs for the section 132a violation. The Appeals Board has now amended its prior decision to formally find a violation of Labor Code section 132a and returned the matter to the trial level for the determination of awards, fines, and costs.

Labor Code section 132aRemittiturPermanent disabilityApportionmentDiscriminationVacation timeSick leaveIndustrial injuryCourt of AppealWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ4240640 (GRO 0018346)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

CARMEN RODRIGUEZ vs. PEA SOUP ANDERSEN'S BEST WESTERN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Carmen Rodriguez's petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the defendant adequately attempted to provide medical treatment and denied her attorney's fees. The applicant sustained industrial injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision, finding that when an employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) fails to yield a treating physician, the employer has an affirmative duty to locate one. The Board returned the case for further proceedings to develop the record on the defendant's efforts and the applicant's attorney's role.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical TreatmentMedical Provider NetworkMPNEmployer DutyPhysician SelectionAttorney FeesLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 5814
References
7
Case No. ADJ8191009, ADJ6834343, ADJ8191008
Regular
Sep 20, 2016

ARTHUR ANDERSEN vs. AL LEWIS TRUCKING, REDWOOD FIRE \& CASUALTY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The defendant, Al Lewis Trucking and its insurer, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a prior Findings and Award. However, before the Board could rule on that petition, the defendant withdrew it. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to WithdrawDismissedFindings and AwardWCJADJSanta Rosa District OfficeArthur AndersenAl Lewis Trucking
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14 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