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

Wind v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Plaintiff Janice Wind sued pharmaceutical companies for DES-related injuries in New York state court in 1986. Defendants Eli Lilly & Company and The Upjohn Company removed the case to federal court in February 1993, citing complete diversity after a claimed settlement with E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. Plaintiff moved to remand, asserting no settlement occurred and that removal was barred by the one-year limit under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), amended in 1988. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, remanding the case to state court and applying the one-year removal limitation retroactively to the pending action. It found no manifest injustice in applying the procedural change and did not address other jurisdictional arguments.

DES LitigationDrug InjuryPharmaceutical LiabilityDiversity JurisdictionRemoval StatuteRetroactive ApplicationOne-Year LimitationFederal ProcedureState Court RemandMass Tort Litigation
References
28
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eli v. Eli

The case concerns a father's application for extensive, overnight visitation with his child, which the mother opposed due to allegations of sexual abuse. The court, presided over by Judge Jeffry H. Gallet, reviewed extensive testimony from fourteen witnesses, including psychologists and social workers. Despite the child's behavioral issues and initial reports by the mother and social workers, the court found insufficient evidence to support the sexual abuse allegations against the father. The decision outlines the implementation of a transitional visitation arrangement and recommends psychotherapy for both parents to address the emotional trauma and improve co-parenting.

Child CustodyVisitation RightsChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsExpert Witness TestimonyPsychological EvaluationSocial Worker AssessmentHearsay EvidenceCorroboration RequirementPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Adjustment Disorder
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2012

Gansburg v. Blachman

This case concerns an appeal by Eli Blachman from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. Blachman sought to dismiss a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and impose sanctions on the petitioners. The original arbitration award directed Blachman to pay a real estate commission to Menachem Gansburg and Aaron Minkowitz. Blachman argued the award was void due to an alleged illegal fee-splitting agreement between licensed broker Gansburg and unlicensed Minkowitz. The Supreme Court denied Blachman's motion and granted the petitioners' request to amend their petition to seek judgment only for Gansburg. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no evidence of the alleged illegal agreement presented to the arbitrators, and that the award did not violate public policy on its face. The court also held that the amendment of the petition was properly granted.

Arbitration AwardReal Estate CommissionFee SplittingPublic PolicyCPLR Article 75Amended PetitionAppellate ProcedureLicensed BrokerUnlicensed BrokerMotion to Dismiss
References
9
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision

UFCW Local 1776 v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Plaintiffs moved for the declassification of documents produced by Eli Lilly & Company in the ongoing multidistrict litigation concerning the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa. Initially, the motion was deferred while an injunction against the further dissemination of confidential documents was pending. Following the resolution of the injunction proceedings, the court addressed whether the declassification motion could proceed and what standards should apply. Distinguishing the plaintiffs' intent to use the documents substantively in their suit from motions by non-parties, the court decided the motion should proceed. It referred the matter to Special Master Woodin, instructing him to declassify any documents not falling within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7) and, even for those that do, to declassify them unless the defendant demonstrates an extraordinary reason for continued sealing.

Multidistrict LitigationDiscoveryDeclassification MotionConfidentialityProtective OrderFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)ZyprexaPharmaceutical LitigationInjunctionSpecial Master
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1988

In re Ely P.

The Westchester County Department of Social Services appealed a Family Court order that dismissed abuse and neglect allegations against Michael E., the mother's live-in boyfriend, concerning three children. The Family Court initially sustained neglect charges against the mother but dismissed those against Michael E., citing insufficient corroboration of the eldest child's out-of-court statements. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that clear indications of physical beatings, combined with the eldest child's statements and demonstrations identifying 'Big Mike' as the perpetrator, provided sufficient corroboration. Applying Family Court Act provisions, the court determined that the evidence established abuse and neglect by Michael E. against the eldest child. Furthermore, this proof extended to finding the other two children also abused and neglected, as Michael E.'s behavior created a substantial risk of physical injury to them. The case was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration of Child StatementsOut-of-Court StatementsAppellate ReviewPhysical Injury RiskSufficiency of EvidenceRemittalDomestic Violence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eli H.

The St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a petition against Gideon H. and Barbara H., alleging their child, E.H., was neglected due to their refusal to consent to life-saving heart surgery. E.H. was diagnosed with tetralogy of fallot with pulmonic atresia and required a 'complete repair' as his existing shunt was no longer adequate, leading to decreasing oxygen levels and a high risk of death. The parents, members of the Schwartzentruber Amish community, objected on religious grounds, believing the surgery's method of 'stopping the heart' was against their beliefs, despite medical experts clarifying the heart would be 'paralyzed' or 'slowed,' not stopped. The court found that E.H. was in imminent danger, there was no acceptable alternative treatment, and therefore adjudged E.H. a neglected child, ordering his release to his parents under DSS supervision.

Child NeglectReligious FreedomMedical Treatment RefusalHeart SurgeryFamily Court ActParental RightsParens PatriaeMedical NecessitySchwartzentruber AmishOxygen Saturation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elie v. St. Barnabas Hospital

The case involves consolidated appeals where defendant St. Barnabas Hospital challenged the denial of its motions to dismiss complaints filed by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, incarcerated individuals at Rikers Island Jail, allege negligence and violations of their civil rights under 42 USC § 1983. They claim that St. Barnabas, which contracted with the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation to provide medical care, implemented institutional policies to discourage costly treatments, leading to negligent care and deliberate indifference to their serious health needs. The appellate court affirmed the denial of St. Barnabas's motions to dismiss, ruling that the complaints adequately state causes of action for negligence and civil rights violations, and that St. Barnabas, as a private healthcare provider, is not entitled to qualified immunity.

Civil Rights42 USC 1983Deliberate IndifferenceInmate Medical CareNegligenceRikers IslandHospital LiabilityMotion to DismissQualified ImmunityEighth Amendment
References
25
Case No. ADJ179514 (STK145833) ADJ2071863 (STK145835)
Regular
May 05, 2010

KEITH SCOTT vs. C B RICHARD ELIS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's decision to issue two separate awards for the applicant's two industrial injuries, rather than a single joint award. This aligns with recent case law and statutory changes requiring apportionment to distinct industrial injuries. The judge correctly applied the principle that separate awards are necessary when an AME can apportion disability between injuries, as occurred here. The prior award's value was credited equally to both new awards, and the new overall disability was split between them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKeith ScottC B Richard ElisInc.Zurich North American InsuranceADJ179514ADJ2071863Reconsideration DeniedBenson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Wilkinson doctrine
References
2
Case No. ADJ8997647
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

BOB ELIS aka BOB ELIAS vs. TENACORE HOLDINGS, INC., HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amended a prior finding to include industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral knees, stemming from a fall at work. However, the WCAB affirmed the original finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to any other body parts. Crucially, the claim was barred by the post-termination defense and statute of limitations, as the employer lacked timely notice of the injury, and the psychiatric claim was barred by insufficient employment duration. Ultimately, the applicant was ordered to take nothing on his claim despite the amended finding regarding his knees.

ADJ8997647Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJpro perres judicataLabor Code sections 3600(a)(10)54053208.3(d)post-termination defense
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 18 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