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. ADJ2969875
Regular
Nov 16, 2012

ROBERTA FRANCINE YOUNG vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's denial of her petition for commutation. The WCJ found that commuting benefits to allow the applicant to purchase a home would result in a net monthly loss of income, based on projected expenses exceeding her reduced income. Applicant argued the WCJ failed to consider future income increases and the stabilization benefits of homeownership. The Board agreed with the WCJ's findings and suggested a new petition could be filed in the future, addressing cognitive disability and financial assistance resources.

Petition for CommutationFindings and OrderWCJ ReportMonthly ExpensesRent PaymentsStorage UnitPG&EHomeowners InsuranceProperty TaxesWorkers' Compensation Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Licata v. Licata

Joseph Licata, III appealed a final divorce decree concerning the disposition of property with Linda Licata. He contested the trial court's implied finding that personal injury settlement proceeds were Linda's separate property, arguing insufficient evidence. Joseph also asserted the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Linda a percentage of his future income from pending cases and referred matters. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Linda presented clear and convincing evidence that the settlement funds were her separate property, a presumption Joseph failed to rebut. The court also found no abuse of discretion regarding the future income award, noting Joseph's failure to show the awards encompassed unvested post-divorce income.

Divorce LawProperty DivisionSeparate PropertyCommunity PropertyPersonal Injury SettlementFuture IncomeAbuse of DiscretionFactual SufficiencyTexas LawAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
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. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
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. 07-04-0362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2005

Jesse Bryan Smith and the Salvation Army v. Otis M. Scott

Jesse Bryan Smith and The Salvation Army appealed a jury verdict awarding Otis M. Scott damages for personal injuries from an automobile accident. Appellants contested the factual and legal sufficiency of evidence supporting awards for past and future loss of earning capacity. Scott, a self-employed builder, presented evidence of diminished income following a shoulder injury and surgery. The appellate court found sufficient probative evidence to support the jury's awards for both past and future lost earning capacity, considering medical testimony and Scott's income comparison. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of Earning CapacitySufficiency of EvidenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewDamagesRotator Cuff TearMedical TestimonyAffirmed Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2003

Tassone v. Mid-Valley Oil Co.

A 22-year-old plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries after falling from the roof of the defendant's Xtra Mart store while installing a satellite system. A prior decision had established the defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Following a trial on damages, the jury awarded the plaintiff a total of $1,345,470 in past damages and $7,389,945 in future damages. The defendant appealed, challenging the speculative nature of the future loss of income award and the 5.15% discount rate applied by the Supreme Court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the lost income and that the discount rate was within the court's discretion.

Personal InjuryDamagesLost EarningsDiscount RateLabor LawAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyFuture DamagesEconomic LossJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,631 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