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

Huff v. CRUZ CONTRACTING CORP.

Plaintiff Adrian Huff, as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Teamsters Local 445 Funds, sued Defendant Cruz Contracting Corp. under LMRA and ERISA, seeking late fees for untimely contribution payments. The case involved cross-motions for summary judgment regarding statutory and contractual damages. Magistrate Judge Smith recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for damages and granting the defendant's cross-motion on statutory damages. The District Court adopted the R&R, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on both statutory and contractual damages and granting the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for Section 1132(g)(2) damages, as all delinquent contributions were paid prior to the lawsuit.

ERISALMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsStatutory DamagesContractual DamagesSummary JudgmentPension FundsWelfare FundsAnnuity Funds
References
37
Case No. OAK 304045
Regular
Nov 09, 2007

GRETCHEN HUFF vs. VASONA MANAGEMENT, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late. The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior WCAB decision that amended an award for temporary disability indemnity. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition was filed 28 days after service, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus five days for mail service, thus divesting the Board of jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGretchen HuffVasona ManagementInc.United States Fire InsuranceOpinion and Order Dismissing Reconsiderationtemporary disability indemnity (TDI)industrial injuryback injurytotal temporary disability
References
8
Case No. ADJ4653074 (BAK 0152415)
Regular
Oct 11, 2013

ROBERT HUFF vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the administrative law judge's decision regarding applicant Robert Huff's workers' compensation claim against the California Department of Corrections. The Board amended the findings to deny temporary total disability benefits for the period December 9, 2009, to March 7, 2011, as the applicant had exhausted his 104-week limit. The Board also deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorney's fees, remanding the matter for a new rating based on the orthopedic Agreed Medical Evaluator's March 5, 2012 report, while affirming the rejection of the psychiatric AME's apportionment. Finally, the Board corrected a clerical error regarding the weekly rate for permanent disability benefits.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDROBERT HUFFCALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSPermissibly UninsuredSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OpinionWCJAgreed Medical EvaluatorsAME
References
9
Case No. ADJ4653074 (BAK 0152415)
Regular
Oct 03, 2013

ROBERT HUFF vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Robert Huff's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR - Corcoran State Prison. The defendant filed a petition for reconsideration of a previous decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted this petition because they need more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues. This action is taken to ensure a just and reasoned decision after further study and potential proceedings. All future filings related to this case must be submitted in writing directly to the WCAB Commissioners' office, not to any district office or via e-filing.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrantedCorcoran State PrisonLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundCase Number ADJ4653074Opinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal Issues
References
0
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Huff v. Department of Corrections

The claimant, a correction officer at Greene Correctional Facility, sustained a right calf injury while practicing volleyball for an employer-sponsored "Olympics" team. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially ruled the injury compensable, prompting an appeal by the employer and its carrier. The Appellate Division found that the Board's decision conflicted with its own precedents on employer sponsorship of off-duty athletic activities. The court determined that the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its prior rulings, as the employer did not overtly encourage or sponsor the activity. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAthletic InjuryEmployer SponsorshipBoard PrecedentRational BasisAppellate ReviewInjury CompensabilityCorrectional OfficerVolleyballGreene County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1994

Walker v. EHCCI Home Care Services, Inc.

The Supreme Court of New York County, presided over by Justice Carol Huff, issued an order on July 25, 1994, which affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The central issue revolved around whether home care workers owe a duty of care to a plaintiff beyond standard contractual duties like cooking and cleaning. The court found that such a duty existed, citing the worker's training on the plaintiff's MS symptoms and previous emergency calls on the plaintiff's behalf. Triable issues of fact remain regarding whether this duty was breached when the plaintiff was left unattended during working hours, and if subsequent events were a foreseeable consequence. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the defendants' motion for summary judgment was appropriately denied, thus affirming the lower court's decision.

Duty of CareSummary JudgmentNegligenceHome Care ServicesTriable Issues of FactForeseeabilityBreach of DutyPatient CareMS PatientNew York Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re SLM Corp. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a securities class action against SLM Corporation. Initially, Westchester Capital Management, Inc. was appointed, but its Article III standing was questioned following a Second Circuit ruling in W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, which clarified that investment advisors without a valid assignment of claims lack standing. The court denied Westchester Capital's subsequent motion to approve a post-appointment assignment, reasoning it would not cure the initial lack of standing and presented unique legal issues for the class. Consequently, the court considered other movants for lead plaintiff, ultimately appointing SLM Venture, a joint venture with the largest financial interest, finding it satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements under the PSLRA and Rule 23. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP was approved as lead counsel for SLM Venture.

Securities Class ActionLead PlaintiffArticle III StandingInvestment AdvisorAssignment of ClaimsPSLRARule 23Typicality RequirementAdequacy RequirementSecond Circuit Law
References
18
Showing 1-8 of 8 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