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

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twin City Bakery Workers & Welfare Fund v. Astra Aktiebolag

Plaintiffs allege that defendants monopolized and attempted to monopolize the market for the gastric acid inhibiting drug Prilosec through "sham" litigation, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws. The core allegation is that defendants listed numerous later-obtained patents in the Orange Book, knowing they would not proscribe generic versions, solely to trigger automatic 30-month stays on generic drug approvals by initiating infringement lawsuits. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint based on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which provides antitrust immunity for attempts to influence governmental action. The court, presided over by District Judge Rakoff, found that because claims of infringement for four of the six asserted patents had proceeded beyond summary judgment and two to trial, the litigation was not objectively baseless and thus enjoyed Noerr-Pennington immunity. Allegations of fraud in obtaining or listing patents were dismissed due to lack of particularity as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The court also determined that merely listing the patents did not cause the monopoly extension; rather, it was the subsequent infringement lawsuits. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state-law claims without prejudice due to a lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham LitigationPatent InfringementFDA RegulationsOrange BookGeneric Drug ApprovalMonopolizationMotion to Dismiss
References
19
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halsey Drug Co. v. Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastics & Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815

Plaintiff Halsey Drug Co., Inc. (Halsey) filed an action against Defendant Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastic and Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815 (Local 815) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Halsey sought a declaration from the court regarding the arbitrability of certain issues related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after closing its Brooklyn facility and moving some operations to Congers, New York. Local 815 demanded that Halsey apply the CBA to the new Congers facility and offer employment to laid-off Brooklyn employees, subsequently filing for arbitration. Halsey argued that the claims arose after the CBA's expiration and should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board, not arbitration. The court, applying established labor law precedents regarding arbitrability, denied Halsey's motion for summary judgment and granted Local 815's motion, ruling that the dispute is arbitrable because the underlying facts arose before the CBA's expiration and involve contract interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnion RepresentationFederal Declaratory Judgment ActLabor Management Relations ActPost-expiration ClaimsArbitrability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Willis

The debtor, Trennis Earl Willis, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. An asset in his estate is a personal injury claim, for which he had a contingency fee contract with attorney Frank L. Supercinski. Supercinski sought approval for his fees ($20,000 plus expenses) from a $50,000 settlement of the personal injury claim and approval of a disbursement scheme. Both the Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected, arguing the contingency fee contract was executory and rejected by the estate. The Court, presided over by Judge Donald R. Sharp, found the contingency fee agreement to be executory and deemed rejected as not assumed by the Trustee. However, applying the common fund doctrine, the Court acknowledged Supercinski's entitlement to fees from the settlement proceeds with priority. Despite this, all of Supercinski's motions (for fees, settlement approval, and relief from stay) were denied due to procedural flaws, such as the settlement not being finalized or approved, and the lack of a settlement agreement copy. The Court clarified that the settlement check is property of the Debtor's estate and must be administered under bankruptcy rules, instructing Supercinski to file a proper application once the settlement is finalized and approved.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyContingency Fee AgreementAttorney's FeesExecutory ContractAutomatic Stay ReliefCommon Fund DoctrineQuantum MeruitTexas LawPersonal Injury SettlementBankruptcy Estate
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cosgrove v. County of Ulster

Petitioner, injured in a work-related accident, received workers' compensation and subsequently settled a third-party tort action against the respondent for $15,000. Petitioner's counsel believed the employer's insurance carrier had approved a one-third share of the settlement but the carrier failed to provide disbursement instructions for its portion. After the carrier terminated workers' compensation benefits, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court granted this approval, which the carrier then appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the settlement amount was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial approval was not due to petitioner's fault, and the carrier was not prejudiced by the delay.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCarrier ConsentThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewSettlement ReasonablenessDelay ExcuseLack of Prejudice
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,783 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