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

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp.

Plaintiffs Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3, LLC and QED LLC filed a putative class action against Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs, who hold mortgage-backed securities, claimed that Countrywide's modifications to mortgage loans, stemming from a settlement with state Attorneys General, obligate Countrywide to repurchase these loans as per the Pooling and Servicing Agreements. Countrywide removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing that the claims involved substantial federal questions under the Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA). The Court, under Judge Richard J. Holwell, concluded that neither CAFA's securities-related exception nor TILA provided the necessary grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

RemandSubject Matter JurisdictionClass Action Fairness ActTruth-in-Lending ActMortgage-Backed SecuritiesPooling and Servicing AgreementsFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsContract InterpretationPredatory Lending
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kessel v. Public Service Commission

This case involves an appeal challenging a rate increase granted to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) by the Public Service Commission. LILCO had requested the increase due to severe financial difficulties and the anticipated non-operation of its Shoreham nuclear plant, leading to a "Financial Stability Adjustment" (FSA) to improve cash flow without increasing income. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that the Commission failed to exercise proper discretion, did not adequately consider ratepayers' interests, and improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that it had appropriately balanced the interests of consumers and investors to preserve LILCO's financial integrity and ensure reliable service. The court also dismissed allegations regarding the burden of proof and judicial bias, concluding that the Commission's determinations were rational and supported by the record.

Rate IncreasePublic Service CommissionLong Island Lighting Company (LILCO)Financial Stability Adjustment (FSA)Utility RegulationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUtility RatesShoreham Nuclear PlantBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. v. Mountbatten Surety Co.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether a professional employer organization (PEO) may be a proper claimant under a labor and materials surety bond. Plaintiff Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a PEO, provided employee leasing services to Team Star Contractors, Inc. for a construction project, covering payroll, taxes, and insurance. When Team Star failed to pay, Tri-State filed a claim with the surety, Mountbatten Surety Company, Inc., which was dismissed by the District Court. The New York Court of Appeals determined that a PEO's primary role as an administrative services provider and payroll financier creates a presumption that it does not provide labor for the purpose of a payment bond claim. The Court found that Tri-State failed to overcome this presumption by demonstrating sufficient direction and control over the workers. Consequently, the Court answered the certified question in the negative, ruling that Tri-State Employment Services, Inc. is not a proper claimant under the surety bond in the circumstances presented.

Professional Employer OrganizationSurety BondLabor and Materials BondClaimant StatusEmployee LeasingPayroll ServicesAdministrative ServicesConstruction ContractCertified QuestionNew York Law
References
16
Case No. 04 Civ. 7844
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2008

Discover Financial Services, DFS Services, LLC v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

Defendants Visa and MasterCard sought to exclude expert testimony from Discover Financial Services, alleging that Discover's inability to utilize third-party acquirers stemmed from lawful conduct, not anti-competitive issuing restrictions. MasterCard also filed several in limine motions, including attempts to preclude evidence related to its Competitive Program Policy (CPP) and to prevent Discover's General Counsel from testifying. The Court denied all motions, affirming the admissibility and reliability of Discover's expert testimony. It clarified that an antitrust plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that unlawful conduct was a substantial, not sole, cause of injury. The ruling allows Discover to proceed with its arguments regarding the causal link between the defendants' issuing bans and its alleged harm.

Antitrust LitigationExpert Witness AdmissibilityDaubert StandardFederal Rule of Evidence 702Motion in LimineCausation in AntitrustCredit Card IndustryThird-Party AcquiringIssuing RestrictionsEconomic Analysis
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1999

Arduini/Messina Partnership v. National Medical Financial Services Corp.

Plaintiffs, Lawrence Arduini, Joseph Messina, and the Arduini/Messina Partnership, initiated a securities fraud lawsuit against National Medical Financial Services Corporation (NMFS), Douglas R. Colkitt, and Alan H.L. Carr-Locke, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state law fraud claims. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the dismissal of the federal securities fraud claims, determining they were time-barred because public SEC disclosures had placed plaintiffs on inquiry notice of potential fraud more than one year before filing. Additionally, the court found that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation. The court also dismissed claims for conspiracy to defraud and "fraud on the market" under federal law and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Defendant Carr-Locke's claims were also dismissed due to failure of service. The request for leave to replead was denied as futile.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsLoss CausationMarket ManipulationInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 10b-5PSLRASupplemental Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Case No. ADJ4303823
Regular
Dec 11, 2008

GLORIA BUSTOS vs. BAYSIDE SERVICES/STAFFING, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION through their servicing facility CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of retroactive VRMA, finding that merely listing vocational rehabilitation as an issue in applications did not establish a good faith demand for services. However, the Board rescinded the denial of attorney's fees under LC 5814.5, remanding the issue for further determination in light of the en banc decision in *Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services*. This ruling clarifies that LC 5814.5 applies to delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code section 5814.5Date of InjuryDate of AwardApplication for Adjudication of ClaimGood Faith DemandRehabilitation UnitUnreasonable Delay
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pronti v. CNA Financial Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas J. Pronti sued CNA Financial Corporation and CNA Retirement Plan (collectively, "Defendants") alleging misrepresentations regarding his pension benefits. Pronti claimed his benefits were wrongfully calculated because his prior service with Continental Insurance Company was not credited under the CNA Plan, despite alleged representations to the contrary. Pronti brought claims for benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and estoppel. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim, finding it duplicated the claim for benefits under ERISA, and the breach of contract claim, finding it preempted by ERISA. However, the Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim, concluding that Pronti had sufficiently alleged a promise, reliance, injury, injustice, and "extraordinary circumstances" under ERISA's federal common law.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelMotion to DismissPreemptionEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlanBenefit Accrual
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 8,265 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