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. ADJ1653540 (SRO 0127586) ADJ1770635 (SRO 0127587)
Regular
Feb 08, 2011

RAUL VILLAPANDO vs. MENDOCINO FOREST PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's challenge to an administrative law judge's (WCJ) attorney's fee award. The WCJ previously increased the applicant's permanent disability rating and awarded the attorney a fee based on the present value of potential future cost-of-living increases to the applicant's life pension, using a speculative 4.7% annual increase. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the issue of basing attorney's fees on future Labor Code section 4659(c) increases, and their calculation, was never properly litigated or discussed by the parties. The applicant's attorney bears the burden of proof on this issue at the new hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeesLife PensionLabor Code Section 4659(c)Cost of Living AdjustmentState Average Weekly WageStipulated Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ 4200496 (GRO 0030688)
Regular
Jan 19, 2010

FRANCISCO MARTINEZ-REYES vs. SOLAMAR FARMS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the proper method for calculating permanent disability award commutations for a farm laborer with 100% disability sustained on February 10, 2004. The applicant appeals the administrative law judge's decision favoring the Uniformed Reduction (UR) method, arguing the Uniformed Increasing Reduction (UIR) method better accounts for state average weekly wage (SAWW) increases mandated by Labor Code section 4659. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and remanded the case for a new decision. The Board found the UIR method better serves the goal of consistent periodic payments, and the SAWW increase commencement date was not moot.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUniformed Reduction (UR)Uniformed Increasing Reduction (UIR)State Average Weekly Wage (SAWW)Permanent Disability AwardCommutationLabor Code Section 4659Life PensionTotal Permanent DisabilityCost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Rollins

Roy Rollins filed an action under T.C.A. sec. 50-1025 to increase a previous compensation award. Initially, he was granted 75% loss of a leg, but the trial judge later increased it to 75% permanent-partial disability to his body as a whole, believing he made a mistake in the first ruling. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the judge could correct a mistake and if there was material evidence for increased disability. The court found that Rollins' testimony was substantially similar to his previous statements, indicating no actual increase in disability. Consequently, the judgment below was reversed, and the petition dismissed, as the statute does not permit correcting factual conclusions without proof of increased disability.

Workers' CompensationDisability IncreaseJudicial ErrorMaterial EvidencePrior AwardAppealTennessee LawPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ConditionRes Judicata
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Underwood v. Zurich Insurance Co.

Cas Underwood, an employee of BASF Corporation, sustained work-connected injuries from an explosion. He received a lump-sum disability award, which was later paid by Zurich Insurance Company. Subsequently, Underwood was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and petitioned to reopen the final judgment, seeking additional disability benefits. The trial court dismissed his petition to reopen, citing a Tennessee statute on the finality of lump-sum payments, but granted his motion for future medical expenses related to PTSD. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that an increase in disability after a lump-sum award does not constitute grounds for relief under Tenn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(5) and that timely notice was given for medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationPost-traumatic Stress DisorderLump-sum SettlementFinality of JudgmentRule 60.02Increased DisabilityMedical ExpensesNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
17
Case No. ADJ1050422 (SAL 0104052) ADJ3107039 (SAL 0114548)
Regular
Jun 30, 2011

ESTELA LUIS vs. COMMUNITY BRIDGES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Estela Luis's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to injuries sustained from a specific knee/psyche injury and a cumulative trauma knee injury. The WCJ awarded 100% permanent disability and a lifetime pension, which the defendant sought reconsideration of. The defendant argued the wrong disability rating schedule was used, the 100% rating was unsubstantiated, apportionment was incorrect, and the SAWW increase calculation was erroneous. The Board granted reconsideration, affirming the award except for the SAWW increase calculation, which will be deferred for further proceedings.

WCABCommunity BridgesState Compensation Insurance FundEstela Luispermanent disabilityspecific industrial injurycumulative traumaCook Assistantpermanent disability rating schedulevocational rehabilitation experts
References
2
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
May 09, 2007

Orlikowski v. Cornerstone Community Federal Credit Union

Plaintiffs, Michael Orlikowski and his wife, appealed a judgment in a personal injury action, seeking increased damages for future pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Defendants, the building owner and general contractor, cross-appealed the finding of Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought judgment against third-party defendant Thomas Johnson, Inc. The appellate court rejected the defendants' challenge to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, it found the awards for future pain and suffering and loss of consortium inadequate, conditionally granting a new trial on these damages unless defendants stipulated to increased amounts. Additionally, the court modified a premature final judgment for indemnification against Thomas Johnson, Inc. but affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs against them.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law 240(1)DamagesFuture Pain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
14
Case No. ADJ3418200 (SJO 0251518)
Regular
Oct 28, 2013

MARC ANEMONE vs. SASCO ELECTRIC, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a prior decision awarding applicant $100\%$ permanent disability and a substantial attorney fee. The defendant argued that the $100\%$ permanent disability award was legally excessive, citing *Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, and sought apportionment for psychiatric and internal injuries. The WCAB affirmed the original findings and award, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and finding the chosen commutation method for attorney fees appropriate. This method accounts for future increases in applicant's disability payments due to SAWW adjustments.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityattorney feescommutationuniformly increasing reductionstate average weekly wageSAWW adjustmentsLabor Code section 4659(c)
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,852 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