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

NAS Electronics, Inc. v. Transtech Electronics PTE Ltd.

The plaintiffs, NAS Electronics, Inc., Jerry Choe, and Pil Yon Choe, initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court against Transtech Electronics Pte Ltd., NAS-Transtech Technology Ltd., and four individuals, alleging fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, slander, and seeking a preliminary injunction. This lawsuit arose from a previous settlement agreement where the plaintiffs owed the defendants $3.2 million due to the plaintiffs' failure to make timely payments and transfer patent rights. The case was subsequently removed to the Southern District of New York. Presiding District Judge Koeltl granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissal on all claims. The fraud claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, the breach of contract claim failed due to the plaintiffs' own material breach, and the tortious interference, slander, and preliminary injunction claims were deemed unsupportable or moot. The court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, leave to amend the complaint, and to reopen discovery.

Summary JudgmentContract LawFraud ClaimRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceSlander ClaimPreliminary InjunctionFederal Civil Procedure
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2006

Command Cinema Corp. v. VCA Labs, Inc.

Command Cinema (Plaintiff) sued VCA Labs (Defendant) for breach of express contract, conversion, and breach of implied contract regarding the loss of master tapes for two adult films, 'The Last X-Rated Movie' (LXRM) and 'The Firestorm Trilogy' (FT). VCA moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on several claims, and in limine to exclude certain damages. Command cross-moved for summary judgment on conversion. The court denied VCA's summary judgment motion on the FT breach of contract claim but granted Command's summary judgment on both FT and LXRM breach of contract claims. The court granted VCA's summary judgment motions on conversion and implied breach of contract, consequently denying Command's cross-motions on these claims. Regarding damages, the court granted VCA's motion in limine to exclude lost profits for the FT contract but denied it for the LXRM contract, allowing Command to present evidence for lost asset value for LXRM. Punitive damages were also precluded.

Breach of ContractConversionImplied ContractSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineLost ProfitsPunitive DamagesMaster TapesBailmentContract Interpretation
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2005

Canino v. Electronic Technologies Co.

Plaintiff, an electrician employed by Electronic Technologies Company (ETC), sustained injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while installing security equipment at a facility owned by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Plaintiff subsequently initiated legal action against both ETC and IBM, alleging multiple violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment against IBM concerning liability under Labor Law section 240 (1), while the defendants filed a cross-motion requesting the dismissal of the entire complaint. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, leading to these cross-appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the adequacy of the safety device provided and whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, thus preventing summary judgment for either side.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Workplace AccidentLadder SafetySummary Judgment MotionCross AppealsQuestion of FactProximate CauseConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises Owner Liability
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rochester Independent Workers & General Dynamics/Electronics Division

This case involves a motion by the Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 (Union) to compel arbitration against General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Company). The grievance concerned a reduction in force, lay-offs, and the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit. The Union claimed violations of the Recognition and Management Rights articles of their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that its right to subcontract and assign work was an exclusive management prerogative explicitly excluded from arbitration by the agreement. The court, referencing Federal precedents, determined that the agreement's language clearly excluded such matters from arbitration and, therefore, denied the Union's motion to compel arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsubcontractingmanagement rightsgrievance procedurelay-offunionfederal court decisionscontract interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 323 v. International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, MacHine & Furniture Workers

Plaintiffs, Local 323 and its officers, initiated a lawsuit against the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers (IUE). They alleged that the IUE unlawfully denied Local 323's right to disaffiliate, claiming the IUE amended its constitution to obstruct disaffiliation and breached its own rules in denying their application. Plaintiffs sought judicial enforcement of disaffiliation, retention of assets, an injunction, and damages. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting various defenses, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. The court ultimately granted the defendant's motion, concluding that Local 323 had not exhausted its available administrative remedies within the union, a prerequisite for pursuing the claims in federal court, given the internal nature of the dispute.

Union DisaffiliationLabor LawLMRALMRDAExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInternal Union DisputeMotion to DismissBreach of ContractFederal Court JurisdictionUnion Constitution
References
14
Case No. ADJ8235581
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

NICOLE TOLLIVER vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Electronic Waveform Lab, Inc. (EWL). The Board found that the defendant's utilization review (UR) of the treating physician's request for an H-Wave device was untimely and invalid because it was not communicated to the physician within the legally mandated 24-hour timeframe. Consequently, the prior decision disallowing EWL's lien was rescinded. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of the medical treatment and the validity of the lien claim.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationH-Wave DeviceLien ClaimTimelinessCommunicationAdministrative RulesLabor CodeMedical TreatmentReconsideration
References
12
Case No. ADJ8837917
Regular
Oct 01, 2015

Deborah Soto vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (AVENAL STATE PRISON), STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Electronic Waveform Lab, seeking removal of a WCJ's order that limited their access to essential medical records and prematurely closed discovery. The claimant contends this order prevents them from proving the reasonableness and necessity of their treatment, thus violating due process. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding that the claimant's inability to prove their lien without the requested records constituted substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. Consequently, the WCJ's order was rescinded, discovery was reopened to obtain the specified medical records, and the trial date was vacated.

RemovalPetition for RemovalPetition for Medical InformationLien ClaimantMedical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS)Reasonableness and NecessityDue ProcessDiscoveryWCJ's OrderSubstantial Prejudice
References
4
Case No. ADJ16902678
Regular
May 15, 2025

MARIA ORTEGA vs. MARIANI STONEBARGER, LLC; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Maria Ortega, the applicant, filed an application for adjudication, which was resolved by an Order Approving Compromise and Release. Lien claimant Electronic Waveform Lab, Inc. (EWL) sought payment for an H-Wave unit provided to the applicant, but its request was denied by Utilization Review and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that EWL was not entitled to payment because no appeal of the IMR determination was filed. Consequently, EWL's Petition for Reconsideration was denied due to the WCAB's lack of jurisdiction to review the IMR decision in the absence of a timely appeal.

Independent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimUtilization ReviewMedical NecessityH-Wave UnitLabor Code Section 4610.6Dubon IIAppeals Board JurisdictionFindings and Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2000

Curran v. Auto Lab Service Center, Inc.

Michael J. Curran, a deliveryman, was injured in a truck accident and, along with his wife, sued Auto Lab Service Center, Inc., alleging faulty repairs. They attempted to amend their complaint to add D&M Auto Parts Corp., Curran's employer, as a direct defendant, claiming D&M destroyed the damaged truck and thereby impaired their ability to recover from Auto Lab. D&M, a third-party defendant, cross-moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing Curran's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court modified the order: the plaintiffs' motion to amend was properly denied as D&M had no duty to preserve the truck, but D&M's cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint should have been granted because Curran did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined by statute.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAmended ComplaintSpoliation of EvidenceEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewDuty to Preserve Evidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 256 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