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

Bernstein v. Seeman

Pro se plaintiff Jeffery Bernstein brought an action against May Seeman, MEAG NY Corporation, Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., and Munich Reinsurance Germany, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and defamation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss against Seeman entirely and the defamation claim against MEAG NY, citing no individual liability under Title VII and absolute immunity for the alleged defamatory statements. However, the court denied Munich Re's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, finding plausible employer liability and an "identity of interest" exception for not being named in the EEOC charge, while granting dismissal for the defamation claim against Munich Re on the basis of absolute privilege.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationDefamationTitle VIIMotion to DismissIndividual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityIdentity of Interest ExceptionAbsolute PrivilegeEEOC
References
24
Case No. ADJ7828286
Regular
Oct 09, 2013

REGINALD GERMANY vs. BUFFALO BILLS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior decision that California lacked jurisdiction over the applicant's cumulative trauma injury claim. The WCAB found that the prior judge improperly applied personal jurisdiction principles. The case is returned for further proceedings to determine if defendants are exempt from WCAB jurisdiction under Labor Code section 3600.5(b) or if jurisdiction should be declined based on a mandatory forum selection clause and limited connection to California, as established in relevant en banc decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryJurisdictionProfessional Football PlayerMcKinley v. Arizona CardinalsLabor Code Section 3600.5(b)Carroll v. Cincinnati BrownsForum Selection ClauseLimited Connection to CaliforniaExtraterritorial Provisions
References
11
Case No. ADJ7191263
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Santa Barbara's petition for reconsideration, upholding an award for surgical treatment in Germany for Christopher Pappas. The County argued the award was improper because the treating physician's request lacked the required authorization format. However, the Board found the County waived its right to object by not raising this issue earlier and presented no evidence that the surgery was not reasonably necessary. Therefore, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to grant the award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristopher PappasCounty of Santa BarbaraPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardsurgical treatmenttreating physicianindustrial injurycumulative traumaspinal surgery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuerst v. Fuerst

This case concerns Wolfgang Fuerst's action against his ex-wife, Hannelore Fuerst, for alleged misconduct during their divorce, with Hannelore counterclaiming and seeking sanctions. The court sua sponte dismissed Hannelore's counterclaims and denied Wolfgang's motion to restore and amend his complaint, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It was determined that Wolfgang, a dual U.S. and German citizen, was domiciled in Germany at the time of filing, making diversity jurisdiction improper. The court granted in part Hannelore's motion for sanctions against Wolfgang's attorney, Delice Seligman, for failing to withdraw the meritless complaint after a settlement was reached and a demand for withdrawal was made, deeming it an abuse of the legal system. The amount of sanctions is pending determination.

Diversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 11 SanctionsDual CitizenshipDomicileDivorce ProceedingAbuse of ProcessIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSettlement AgreementWithdrawal of Complaint
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiff, Bristol County Retirement System, initiated a putative securities class action against European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (EADS) and its executives. The lawsuit alleged that EADS misled investors about production delays concerning the Airbus A380 aircraft, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the alleged fraudulent activities and their impact were predominantly European. It was determined that the connections to the United States were insufficient to meet either the 'conduct test' or the 'effects test' for the extraterritorial application of U.S. securities laws. The court also observed that France, Germany, and the Netherlands provided adequate alternative forums for the claims.

Securities FraudClass ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationConduct TestEffects TestForum Non ConveniensAirbus A380EADSForeign Securities
References
84
Case No. 02 Civ. 5571(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses defendants' motion for partial summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' standing in a securities litigation against Vivendi Universal S.A., Jean-Marie Messier, and Guillaume Hannezo. The central issue is whether various investment management companies, suing on behalf of investment funds and their investors, possess constitutional standing under the "Huff exception." The court examines the legal structures of numerous foreign investment vehicles from Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark. It concludes that most management companies for German, Luxembourgian FCPs, French FCPs, Belgian FCPs, Swedish, and Austrian funds satisfy the Huff exception, denying summary judgment against them. However, the court grants summary judgment against Danish investment companies, finding their relationship with the Associations does not meet the exception's requirements. The opinion also rules that post-filing assignments or substitutions under Rule 17 FRCP can cure standing defects, allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaints.

Securities LitigationStandingSummary JudgmentInvestment FundsManagement CompaniesArticle III StandingHuff ExceptionRule 17 FRCPClass ActionVivendi Universal
References
18
Showing 1-6 of 6 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