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

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. ADJ8897034
Regular
May 03, 2018

MARIA CUELLAR DE PATLAN vs. GELSONS MARKET, SPRINGFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimant Mesa Pharmacy's petition for removal was granted because the WCJ erred in continuing the lien trial to notify the anti-fraud unit (AFU), as this violated due process and the AFU lacked standing. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's order, finding that documents now available on the DIR website likely obviate the need for AFU involvement. The matter was taken off calendar to allow parties to review these documents, with a new hearing to be scheduled if a dispute regarding Labor Code section 4615 remains.

RemovalLien ClaimantAnti-Fraud Unit (AFU)Labor Code Section 4615Due ProcessElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Stayed LienPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. ADJ8290334
Regular
May 23, 2016

MARTHA GALVEZ vs. HEY BABY OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, rescinding a WCJ's order that continued a lien trial to obtain documents from the anti-fraud unit regarding a potential Labor Code section 4615 stay. The Board found that with the Department of Industrial Relations now publishing relevant documents online, discovery should be reopened for the parties to review these materials. This action aims to resolve the section 4615 issue efficiently and obviate the need for the WCJ's direct involvement with the anti-fraud unit. If a dispute persists after reviewing the online documents, parties can seek a new hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAnti-Fraud UnitLabor Code Section 4615Due ProcessWCJDepartment of Industrial RelationsLien ClaimantStay of LienIndicted Provider
References
5
Case No. 07-CR-14(S-1)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2014

United States v. Qualls

Thomas Qualls was found guilty by jury verdict on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice in 2008, and later pled guilty to failure to appear. During sentencing, Qualls objected to several enhancements to his offense level, including those for loss amount, sophisticated means, and leadership role, and sought a downward departure due to diminished mental capacity. The Court, presided over by Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied all of Qualls's objections and requests for downward departure or variance. The Court affirmed that the application of the 2013 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual did not violate the ex post facto clause and that a Fatico hearing was unwarranted. Consequently, a sentence within the Guidelines range was imposed, totaling 150 months concurrently for fraud counts and 60 months consecutively for failure to appear.

Criminal FraudWire FraudMail FraudObstruction of JusticeFailure to AppearSentencing GuidelinesEx Post FactoDiminished Mental CapacitySophisticated MeansLeadership Role
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Villanueva Madrid

Defendant Consuelo Marquez, an investment broker, was indicted on seventeen counts, including conspiracy to launder illegal proceeds and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud. Marquez sought severance of the money laundering charge (Count One) from the bank and wire fraud charges (Counts Two through Seventeen), dismissal of certain charges, and various discovery orders. The court granted her motion for severance under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, citing the undue prejudice that would arise from a joint trial due to the potentially inflammatory nature of the money laundering evidence. The court denied the motion to dismiss the wire fraud charges based on deprivation of honest services, finding the indictment facially sufficient. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part Marquez's discovery motions, setting a schedule for the disclosure of Giglio material, Rule 404(b) evidence, and witness lists.

SeveranceMoney LaunderingBank FraudWire FraudConspiracyFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureUndue PrejudiceDiscovery OrdersHonest Services FraudFiduciary Duty
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strehle v. United States

Seaman Richard Frances Meyer died on a United States Navy vessel due to entrapment in ropes from a malfunctioning winch. His administratrix, Loretta Strehle, sued the United States under the Public Vessels Act, Jones Act, and Death on the High Seas Act, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness. The court found the United States liable, citing the uncorrected defects in the winches and their "deadman" safety feature. The court rejected the claim of Meyer's contributory negligence. Plaintiff was awarded $28,600 for loss of income to Meyer’s dependents (his four sisters) and $50,000 for Meyer's pain and suffering prior to death, totaling $78,600.

Admiralty LawJones ActDeath on the High Seas ActPublic Vessels ActMaritime NegligenceVessel UnseaworthinessWrongful DeathPain and SufferingLoss of SupportComparative Negligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

T & M Meat Fair, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 174

The plaintiffs, T & M Meat Fair, Inc. and its owners, filed a class action lawsuit in New York state court against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) unions and affiliated funds, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty related to their participation in ERISA plans. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing original jurisdiction under ERISA and LMRA. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that federal jurisdiction was improper and also sought attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that federal jurisdiction was proper based on at least one claim arising under ERISA in the amended complaint, and also denied the request for attorneys' fees and costs. The court explicitly stated that Count III, asserting rights under ERISA for Milano, established federal jurisdiction.

ERISALMRARemoval JurisdictionFederal CourtState CourtRemand MotionClass ActionLabor UnionPension FundsHealth Funds
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,203 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