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

Ho v. Duoyuan Global Water, Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs and others commenced a class action against Duoyuan Global Water, Inc. (DGW), its management, directors, underwriters, auditors, and GEF for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in DGW's SEC filings and press releases, leading to a decline in stock value and significant financial injury. Defendants moved for dismissal of the corrected amended complaint on various grounds, including insufficient pleading and statute of limitations. The court denied motions to dismiss several claims against DGW, CEO Wenhua Guo, and CFO Stephen C. Park, specifically regarding false financial statements and scienter. However, motions to dismiss against the external auditor Grant Thornton International, several individual directors, and the GEF defendants were granted due to lack of direct liability, control, or agency.

Securities FraudClass ActionIPOSPOFinancial MisrepresentationGAAP ViolationsScienterMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsAuditor Liability
References
70
Case No. CCAC [# 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2010

In Re Arthrocare Corporation Securities Litigation

This is a consolidated securities class action suit against ArthroCare Corporation, its executives, and auditor PwC. The suit arose from a restatement of earnings from 2004-2008 due to alleged fraudulent practices related to insurance billing, healthcare compliance (DiscoCare and DRS models, upcoding, inflated prices), and improper revenue recognition. Lead Plaintiff DeKalb County Pension Fund alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a sur-reply. Motions to dismiss by ArthroCare, Michael Baker, and Michael Gluk were granted in part and denied in part, based on a strong inference of scienter for actions taken after December 11, 2007. Motions to dismiss by David Applegate, John T. Raffle (control person claims), and PriceWaterhouseCooper (auditor) were granted due to insufficient pleading of control or scienter.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissScienterLoss CausationCorporate AccountingFinancial RestatementGAAP ViolationsGAAS StandardsInternal Controls
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re OSG Securities Litigation

This case involves lead plaintiffs Stichting Pensioenfonds DSM Nederland, Indiana Treasurer of State, and Lloyd Crawford, who filed a class action lawsuit against various individual, auditor, and underwriter defendants following a Senior Notes Offering by Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. (OSG). OSG later filed for bankruptcy and is not a party. Plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, claiming OSG failed to disclose significant tax liabilities under Section 956. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by the Auditor and Underwriter Defendants. However, the court granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims due to insufficient allegations of scienter, but denied the motion with respect to the Securities Act claims. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotions to DismissSecurities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Auditor LiabilityUnderwriter LiabilityCorporate Tax LiabilitySection 956 Internal Revenue Code
References
83
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

Auditore v. City of New York

This case addresses an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the City of New York for injuries sustained from 9/11-related toxic exposure. Petitioner sought to serve the notice more than one year and 90 days after accrual. The court grappled with issues of subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations, and federal preemption by the ATSSSA, which grants exclusive federal jurisdiction for 9/11 toxic exposure claims. While acknowledging the City had actual notice and was not prejudiced, the court felt constrained by the precedent set in Matter of Goffredo v City of New York to deny the application, as it was brought beyond the state's one-year-and-90-day limitations period. The opinion also raised questions about whether a notice of claim is even required for ATSSSA-governed claims.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimsubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationsfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawATSSSAWorld Trade CenterNew York courts
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division v. Camarata

Thomas A. Camarata, a fifty-year-old auditor for the Texas Department of Human Services, filed a worker's compensation claim after sustaining an injury on September 30, 1985. The injury, diagnosed as post-traumatic stress syndrome by his doctors, stemmed from receiving a critical memo from his supervisor regarding his work performance. The jury found that Camarata suffered temporary total incapacity due to this injury within the scope of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's finding that a mental trauma caused by the memo constituted a compensable injury.

worker's compensationtemporary total incapacitymental traumapost-traumatic stress syndromeemployment injuryjury verdictappellate reviewinsufficient evidencepsychological injuryworkplace stress
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

In re Mamash Restaurant Corp.

Mamash Restaurant Corporation appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions and a fraud penalty for the audit period of January 1993 through December 1995. The Board's assessment was based on findings that Mamash underreported its employees and failed to produce accurate records. Mamash contended that the Board improperly estimated the number of employees due to physical capacity limitations of its premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board was justified in its estimated assessment given Mamash's failure to produce records and evidence from a tax auditor's survey. The fraud penalty was also upheld as warranted under the circumstances.

Unemployment InsuranceUnderreporting EmployeesFraud PenaltyEstimated AssessmentEmployee RecordsAudit PeriodAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager with the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported several alleged legal violations by his employer to the State Auditor’s Office. Howard subsequently experienced retaliation, including denial of promotions and merit pay increases, which he attributed to his whistleblowing activities. He successfully sued the department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages. The Department appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including good faith reporting, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationPerformance EvaluationEmployment DiscriminationState Auditor's OfficeGood Faith ReportCausal LinkEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

DEPT. OF ASSISTIVE & REHAB. SERV. v. Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices by his employer to the State Auditor's Office. He claimed retaliation after his superiors learned of his report, leading to negative performance appraisals and denied promotions and merit pay increases despite an exemplary 24-year work record. Howard sued the Department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including the report's good faith, the appropriateness of the authority, and causation. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor's OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialCausationGood Faith ReportEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. City of New York

Claimant, a former auditor for the New York City Department of Social Services, sought workers' compensation benefits for aggravated respiratory problems attributed to a special 9/11 relief check distribution assignment. The Workers’ Compensation Board repeatedly denied her claims as untimely, concluding her activities did not meet the criteria for "World Trade Center rescue, recovery and clean-up operations" under Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A. On appeal, the Court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding a narrow interpretation of "recovery" to specifically refer to the recovery of human remains, not economic assistance. The Court found no direct or tangible connection between the claimant's duties and the statutorily defined operations, thereby confirming the untimeliness of her claim.

Workers' Compensation Law9/11World Trade CenterRespiratory IllnessTimelinessWorkers' Compensation BoardStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-AAppealRecovery Operations
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 35 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