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
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
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

United States v. Yi Ching Liu

The case concerns defendant Yi Ching Liu, who was charged with using unauthorized credit card convenience checks and pled guilty. Liu sought a downward departure from sentencing guidelines, claiming diminished capacity due to pathological gambling addiction. Expert testimony from psychotherapist Stephen Block, supported by DSM IV criteria, confirmed Liu's severe addiction and a direct link to his criminal acts. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Weinstein, granted a four-point downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, resulting in a 24-month incarceration sentence. The decision emphasizes that pathological gambling can constitute significantly reduced mental capacity for sentencing purposes, citing precedent and the evolving understanding of this disorder.

Diminished CapacityPathological GamblingSentencing GuidelinesDownward DepartureImpulse Control DisorderFraudCredit Card FraudCriminal SentencingDSM IVFederal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc.

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) sued Ultreo, Inc. for false advertising under the Lanham Act and the New York Consumer Protection Act, specifically challenging Ultreo's claims about its toothbrush technology. P&G sought the disclosure of five scientific studies conducted by Ultreo, arguing they were discoverable business documents. Ultreo resisted, claiming the studies were protected by attorney work product privilege. The court rejected Ultreo's argument, finding that the studies were a core part of Ultreo’s business plan to substantiate its advertising claims and would have been prepared regardless of anticipated litigation. Therefore, the court ordered Ultreo to produce the studies to P&G.

False advertisingLanham ActNew York Consumer Protection ActDiscovery disputeAttorney work productPrivilegeScientific studiesClinical researchLitigation anticipationBusiness plan
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. ADJ8136512 ADJ8136526
Regular
Apr 30, 2019

SOLANGE TUCKER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and REHABILITATION, PAROLE and COMMUNITY SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The original award found applicant sustained industrial injuries to her shoulder, knees, psyche, hypertension, headaches, and a sleep disorder, resulting in 73% permanent partial disability. The defendant argued against the findings regarding the sleep disorder, temporary disability, and the overall PD rating. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, finding substantial evidence supported the award for sleep disorder and temporary disability, and that the psychiatric impairment did not subsume the sleep disorder impairment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderRight KneeLeft KneePsycheHypertensionSleep Arousal Disorder
References
7
Case No. ADJ8782360
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

Eldridge Taylor vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration, affirming a prior award to Eldridge Taylor. The award included permanent disability for cumulative trauma injuries, sleep disorder, and hearing loss. The employer argued the sleep disorder rating was subsumed by orthopedic pain, the hearing loss lacked substantial evidence, and the WCJ failed to properly apportion non-industrial factors. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding sufficient medical evidence for the sleep disorder and hearing loss. The dissenting opinion argued the sleep disorder award should be rescinded as it stemmed solely from industrial pain already rated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEldridge TaylorCalifornia Department of Corrections and RehabilitationLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8782360Cumulative TraumaCorrectional OfficerParole OfficerSleep Disorder
References
1
Case No. ADJ6772869
Regular
Jan 17, 2012

Michelle Jones vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

This case involves a worker seeking compensation for a sleep disorder in addition to her admitted industrial shoulder injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award. The Board found that the applicant's hypersomnia was not a separate ratable sleep disorder, but rather a consequence of pain from her industrial shoulder injury. Therefore, the case was returned for a new permanent disability rating that excludes the sleep disorder.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySleep DisorderPermanent DisabilityRight ShoulderHypersomniaAMA GuidesPain Questionnaire
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 416 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