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. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laguesse v. Storytown U.S.A., Inc.

Terry L. Laguesse and her husband sued Great Escape for personal injuries sustained when a grate fell on Ms. Laguesse at the amusement park. Following a jury award in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants appealed, arguing improper admission of hearsay evidence and an erroneous jury charge regarding prior accidents. The appellate court found that while the hearsay was improperly admitted, it was harmless error due to cumulative expert testimony establishing the defendant's constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court also upheld the lower court's refusal to charge on prior accidents, citing evidence of past failures, and affirmed the damages award for future pain and suffering as not excessive given the plaintiff's injuries and need for potential future surgeries. Therefore, the judgment and order were affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityHearsay EvidenceSpontaneous DeclarationParty AdmissionsHarmless ErrorNotice of Dangerous ConditionPrior AccidentsExcessive DamagesFuture Pain and Suffering
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westerhaus v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Justice Lagarde dissents in a case concerning the readjudication of "future dependency" of a minor under the Workers' Compensation Act. In 1982, Stacie was found dependent, with an insurance company, Liberty, paying benefits until 1993 when it sought readjudication. The trial court's judgment allowed for readjudication based on a "material change of the then circumstances of dependency." Lagarde argues that Liberty's summary judgment evidence, which included Stacie's admissions about her financial independence and age, conclusively proved this material change. Therefore, Justice Lagarde would have affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Liberty.

Future DependencyMinor DependencyWorkers' CompensationReadjudicationMaterial Change of CircumstancesSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAdult Child DependencyFinancial IndependenceInsurance Benefits
References
0
Case No. ADJ12376717
Regular
Mar 28, 2023

RONNIE JOHNSON vs. FUTURE PLASTERING, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Removal. The petitioner, Future Plastering, Inc. and its insurer, Insurance Company of the West, voluntarily withdrew their petition. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition for removal of the August 24, 2022 decision.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFuture PlasteringInsurance Company of the WestRonnie JohnsonAdjudication NumberVan Nuys District OfficeOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyde v. North River Insurance

This case examines whether an insurance carrier, having paid no-fault benefits, can assert a lien against a judgment recovered by its insured for pain, suffering, and future economic loss. The plaintiff, an injured insured, received $50,000 in no-fault benefits from North River Insurance Company. In a subsequent tort action against the County of Rensselaer, the plaintiff secured a $1,000,000 verdict. The insurance company filed a lien against this judgment. The Special Term and appellate courts affirmed that the lien was invalid because the jury's verdict explicitly excluded basic economic loss, thereby preventing a double recovery. The decision clarifies that liens are only enforceable against recoveries that duplicate previously paid basic economic losses.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury CompensationBasic Economic LossNon-Economic LossPain and Suffering DamagesDouble Recovery PreventionStatutory LienAutomobile Accident
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,612 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