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. ADJ11893382
Regular
Mar 10, 2020

JAIME ANGUIANO (Deceased) vs. INTER CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a deceased applicant, Jaime Anguiano, and the defendants Inter Con Security Systems and Arch Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal filed by one of the parties. The WCAB emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration cannot remedy. Because the WCJ's report suggested placing the matter back on calendar, the WCAB determined the issue is best handled at the trial level and denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationTrial LevelStatus ConferenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
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. 910
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiffs, a group of retirement systems and a union, filed a class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud against Alstom S.A., its subsidiaries Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), Alstom USA, and executives Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joseph Janovec. The claims involve violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from ATI's alleged understatement of costs on railcar contracts, particularly for New Jersey Transit. These accounting improprieties purportedly led to an overstatement of Alstom's income in public financial reports. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter against Alstom, active participation and scienter against Rambaud-Measson and Janovec, and a plausible veil-piercing theory for Alstom USA's liability. The decision allows the case to proceed, underscoring that the plaintiffs' detailed new allegations, including executive knowledge of cost overruns, met the heightened pleading standards for fraud and control liability.

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Plaintiffs, led by Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, filed a class action against Cablevision Systems Corporation and its executives for alleged securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. They contended that defendants made material misrepresentations by attributing video subscriber losses to a retransmission dispute, rather than undisclosed competition from Verizon and rising marketing costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Matsumoto, found that Cablevision had consistently disclosed competitive risks and increased expenses in SEC filings. It concluded that the executives' statements were either opinions or puffery, and plaintiffs failed to adequately allege material misrepresentations or scienter. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice was granted in its entirety, and plaintiffs' request for leave to amend was denied as futile.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissMaterial MisrepresentationScienterPufferySecurities Exchange Act of 1934PSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Class Action
References
41
Case No. 09-CV-4074 (ADS)(AKT)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gentiva Securities Litigation

This case involves a consolidated securities fraud class action filed by the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) against Gentiva Health Services, Inc., and several of its executives. LACERS alleged that Gentiva inflated its stock price by ordering medically unnecessary home health services and billing Medicare for them. After initial dismissals and amendments, the court addressed a motion for partial reconsideration. The court dismissed remaining claims against former CFO John R. Potapchuk and the corporate entity Gentiva but sustained Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against former CEO Ronald A. Malone, based on a theory of motive and opportunity related to insider stock sales.

Securities FraudClass ActionStock ManipulationMedicare FraudScienterMotive and OpportunityControl Person LiabilityPSLRARule 10b-5Securities Exchange Act of 1934
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2012

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System initiated a securities class action against Lockheed Martin Corp. and three executives, alleging intentional false and misleading statements regarding the performance of Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Systems division. The defendants moved to dismiss all counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss Count I, a claim of securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, finding sufficient allegations of falsity, materiality, and scienter, particularly for executive Linda Gooden. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss Counts II and III, asserting control person liability, due to the plaintiff's failure to present a plausible alternative theory where defendants were not primary violators. This memorandum details the reasons for these rulings.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPSLRASafe HarborBespeaks Caution DoctrineScienterMaterialityCore Operations DoctrineGroup Pleading
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cravotta v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a New York City sanitation worker, sustained a knee injury after allegedly slipping on a sanitation truck step contaminated by a slippery substance from a dump site. His application for accidental disability retirement benefits from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) was denied, as his injury was not deemed an "accident" under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b. The petitioner challenged this determination, but both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The courts found that the injury occurred during routine duties and was not so extraordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury.

Accidental disabilityRetirement benefitsSanitation workerKnee injurySlipping accidentRoutine dutiesNYCERSAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAnnulment petition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leary v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Dorothy Leary, a part-time junior public health nurse for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, injured her left knee after slipping on stairs due to wet shoes from snow outside. Her application for disability retirement benefits was denied by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, following a recommendation from the Medical Board that her injuries were not sustained as an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605. Leary challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court initially denied. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granted Leary's petition, annulled the Board's determination, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that her fall constituted an accident.

Workers' CompensationDisability RetirementPublic Health NurseSlip and Fall InjuryAccident DefinitionCPLR Article 78Medical Board ReviewAppellate ReversalRetirement and Social Security LawKings County Supreme Court
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,718 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