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

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lupo

The conviction for course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree is affirmed. The primary issue was the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding the timing of oral sexual conduct, specifically whether it occurred after the August 1, 1996 effective date of the relevant statute. The victim's testimony confirmed the acts took place between August 1, 1996, and her 11th birthday in February 1999, satisfying the statutory requirements. The court also found no error in the County Court's questioning of witnesses or in the admissibility of expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, as the expert testified generally and did not bolster the victim's account.

Child Sexual AbuseFirst Degree Sexual ConductVictim TestimonyStatutory InterpretationEffective DateJudicial QuestioningExpert TestimonyChild Sexual Abuse Accommodation SyndromeAppellate ReviewConviction Affirmed
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sivel v. Readers Digest, Inc.

The case concerns a diversity action where defendants moved for summary judgment regarding plaintiff Sivel's claims of breach of an oral employment contract and misrepresentation against Reader's Digest and its executives. Sivel alleged that he was orally assured permanent employment in the United States and termination only for serious cause, which he argued limited Reader's Digest's right to fire him "at-will." The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, reasoning that Sivel's testimony, if credible, could establish an express agreement overriding the at-will presumption under New York law. However, summary judgment was granted to the defendants on the misrepresentation claims, as the court found these allegations to be inextricably linked to the alleged contract terms and thus enforceable only through a contract action.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractMisrepresentationOral AgreementEmployee HandbookNew York LawFraudulent InducementJob Security
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rankin v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District

Claimant, a school bus driver, suffered a work-related injury in November 2007 and filed for workers' compensation benefits in March 2008. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the claimant failed to provide timely written notice within 30 days as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Workers' Compensation Board, however, found that the claimant had given adequate oral notice and excused the failure to comply with the written notice statute, leading to the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that failure to provide timely written notice can be excused if notice could not be given, the employer had knowledge, or the employer was not prejudiced. The court credited the claimant's testimony that she verbally informed both a bus dispatcher and her supervisor shortly after the accident, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination of adequate oral notice.

Workers' Compensation Law § 18Timely NoticeOral NoticeExcused NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBus DriverWork-related InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. Simplex Grinnell LP

Plaintiff Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO (Local 669) initiated an action against Grinnell Corporation d/b/a/ Grinnell Fire Protection, sued as Simplex Grinnell LP, to enforce a 2001 collective bargaining agreement. Local 669 argued that Grinnell was bound to the agreement as a member of the National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA), a multiemployer national trade association. Grinnell contended it was not bound, claiming it had timely withdrawn from NFSA before negotiations began, first orally on April 25, 2001, and subsequently by written letter on May 10, 2001. The court ruled that Grinnell's oral notice was insufficient, lacking clarity and contradicting prior deposition testimony, and the written notice was untimely as actual negotiations had already commenced on May 8, 2001. The decision was further supported by a prior NLRB ruling on an unfair labor practice charge filed by Grinnell. Consequently, the court found Grinnell bound by the 2001 agreement and granted Local 669's motion for summary judgment, ordering Grinnell to submit to arbitration.

Collective Bargaining AgreementMultiemployer Bargaining UnitWithdrawal NoticeSummary Judgment MotionArbitration DisputeLabor LawNLRB DecisionTimeliness of WithdrawalOral CommunicationWritten Communication
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 2,674 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