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. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benihana of Tokyo, LLC v. Benihana Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Benihana of Tokyo, LLC (plaintiff) and Benihana, Inc. (defendant Benihana America), regarding a license agreement for a Benihana restaurant in Hawaii and alleged trademark infringements. Benihana of Tokyo sought a declaratory judgment that statements on its website did not violate Benihana America's Lanham Act rights and moved to compel arbitration of Benihana America's counterclaims. Benihana America filed counterclaims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, trademark dilution, and breach of contract. The Court determined that the arbitration clause in the License Agreement was mandatory once invoked. It granted Benihana of Tokyo's motion to compel arbitration for some counterclaims related to the Hawaii restaurant, but denied it for others primarily related to website statements unrelated to the Hawaii License Agreement. The Court also denied Benihana of Tokyo's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint without prejudice.

Arbitration AgreementTrademark InfringementLanham ActLicense AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentCounterclaimsWebsite MisrepresentationContract DisputeFederal Arbitration ActHawaii Restaurant
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 1979

Raio v. Hawaii Kai Restaurant

Claimant, a guitarist, suffered an acute myocardial infarction while performing after physical exertion during employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the injury was causally related to his employment, a decision subsequently challenged on appeal. Although an impartial specialist opined against causal relation, the record contained other medical testimony and reports supporting the Board's decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, assessing costs against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Myocardial InfarctionOccupational InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceGuitaristPhysical ExertionAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged actions to improperly delay the market entry of generic competitors to its dry-eye medication Restasis®. End-Payor Plaintiffs (EPPs), representing health and welfare funds, assert they overpaid due to Allergan's monopolistic conduct, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO, and using tribal sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss various state antitrust and consumer protection claims. The court, presided over by Judge Nina Gershon, granted in part and denied in part Allergan's motion, dismissing some claims (e.g., Missouri, Pennsylvania, Vermont due to standing or reliance requirements, and portions of Arkansas claims post-August 1, 2017) while allowing others to proceed (e.g., Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Tennessee, Wisconsin, California, Colorado).

Antitrust LawConsumer ProtectionMonopolizationGeneric DrugsPatent InfringementSham LitigationRule 12(b)(6) MotionIndirect PurchasersState Law ClaimsMulti-District Litigation
References
60
Case No. 14-cv-9662
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

In re Petrobras Securities Litigation

This case involves a putative class action where Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd. (USS), along with Union Asset Management Holding AG and Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, sued Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. — Petrobras, its subsidiaries, former officers and directors, independent auditor PwC, and several underwriters. Plaintiffs allege a multi-year, multi-billion dollar bribery and kickback scheme at Petrobras, leading to false and misleading statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, and Brazilian law. The alleged scheme involved inflated contracts and kickbacks, causing overvaluation of Petrobras's assets and a decline in its securities' price. The Court largely denied defendants' motion to dismiss Exchange Act claims for failure to plead materiality and scienter. However, some Securities Act claims were dismissed due to the statute of repose or lack of reliance, while others related to standing were granted leave to amend. Brazilian law claims were dismissed due to a mandatory arbitration provision in Petrobras's bylaws, found valid under Brazilian law, but this provision was not applied to the Exchange Act claims.

Securities LitigationClass ActionBriberyKickbacksCorporate FraudFinancial MisstatementsSecurities Exchange ActSecurities ActBrazilian LawMotion to Dismiss
References
40
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