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

Davis v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

A construction laborer (plaintiff) sustained injuries while moving a heavy filtration unit, leading him to file a negligence claim and allege violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and three Stantec-related entities. After consolidating the actions, the plaintiff sought to add a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed this denial, ruling that the proposed amendment lacked merit. The appellate court clarified that the Runner precedent did not broaden the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) to include injuries not arising from a significant elevation differential. The decision concluded that the plaintiff's injury, resulting from an object tipping during horizontal movement, did not fall under the statute's protections for elevation-related risks.

Construction accidentLabor LawStatutory interpretationElevation-related riskMotion to amendAppellate procedurePersonal injuryWorkplace safetyHorizontal movementGravity
References
16
Case No. CA 15-01567
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2016

ST. JOHN, KATHLEEN v. WESTWOOD-SQUIBB PHARMACEUTICALS, IN

Plaintiff Kathleen St. John initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained while preparing lighting equipment in a parking lot owned by the defendant, Westwood-Squibb Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the accident occurred due to debris, leading to a trip or slip. Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by partially granting the defendant's motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action premised on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e) (1), and (e) (2), finding these regulations inapplicable to the case facts. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved issues of control and constructive notice.

Labor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteDangerous ConditionOut-of-Possession OwnerCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Danbury Pharmacal, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the determination of reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements following a finding that defendants willfully infringed plaintiffs' patent for famotidine in a previous trial. Judge Owen reviews objections from the defendants regarding various billing practices, including rates, staffing, hotel expenses, and in-house counsel fees. The court ultimately reduces the requested attorneys' fees by 30% to $1,635,440 and awards adjusted disbursements of $400,000, deeming these amounts a fair resolution of the defendants' contentions.

Patent InfringementAttorneys' FeesDisbursement AwardHatch-Waxman ActExceptional CaseLodestar MethodBilling RatesLegal StaffingIn-house CounselExpert Witness Fees
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2008

Maldonado v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of American Building Maintenance Company of New York (ABM), sought damages for personal injuries after slipping on snow and ice on a storm drain grate at property owned by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, granted summary judgment to Novartis, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The appellate court found that Novartis had no duty to clear snow and ice from the grate and did not create the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that Novartis had actual or constructive notice of the ice.

personal injurypremises liabilityslip and fallsnow and icesummary judgmentduty of careactual noticeconstructive noticeproperty owner liabilitymaintenance contract
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aspilaire v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Plaintiff Nadine Aspilaire sued Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law § 296. Her claims included denial of maximum pay, forced double shifts, reassignment to operator duties, and denial of a promotion to an administrative assistant position. The court dismissed claims prior to January 2003 as time-barred under the continuing violation doctrine. Granting summary judgment for the defendant, the court found that Aspilaire failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment or retaliation and dismissed her constructive discharge claim due to insufficient evidence and the availability of internal complaint procedures.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentConstructive DischargeEmployment LawHuman Rights LawStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chandler v. Janssen Pharm., Inc.

Plaintiff Tyrieke Chandler sued Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen Research & Development, LLC, alleging failure to warn about Risperdal's side effects, specifically gynecomastia. Plaintiff, who began taking Risperdal in 2003, developed enlarged breast tissue and underwent bilateral mastectomies in 2014. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted the motion, finding that Plaintiff could not establish that the drug's warning labels (from 2002, 2006, and 2007) were inadequate, as gynecomastia was identified as a side effect. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to prove specific causation because his prescribing physicians were independently aware of the risk and did not rely on the labels or inform the plaintiff of the risk.

Product LiabilityPharmaceuticalsFailure to WarnRisperdalGynecomastiaSummary JudgmentLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationPrescription DrugsSide Effects
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs Caroline Marks, Maxine Blonstein, and Lois Steward, representing classes of consumers and indirect purchasers of tamoxifen citrate in California, Florida, and Kansas, respectively, originally filed state antitrust and consumer protection claims against defendants Zeneca, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca PLC (collectively “Zeneca”) and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”). The cases were removed to federal court, and plaintiffs now seek to remand them, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue for federal question jurisdiction under federal patent law, the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, and collateral attack on federal court orders, as well as diversity jurisdiction for the Marks class action. The Court, applying Second Circuit law, concludes that the plaintiffs' claims necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the motions to remand are denied, and the cases remain in federal court.

AntitrustPatent LawFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMultidistrict LitigationHatch-Waxman ActTamoxifenGeneric DrugsSettlement AgreementWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
39
Case No. ADJ8323423
Regular
Nov 13, 2014

JAIME VILLEGAS vs. NOVY RANCH MARKET, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, PharmaFinance, seeking to prove its lien for pharmaceuticals. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for removal, rescinding a WCJ's order compelling the production of a contract. The WCAB found the contract irrelevant to the reasonable value of pharmaceuticals, which is governed by a statutory fee schedule. However, the lien claimant must still prove its legal assignment and identity to establish the validity of its lien. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on establishing the lien.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantsCompromise and ReleaseAssignment of ReceivablesPharmaceutical Fee ScheduleReasonable Value of ServicesTrade SecretDecertified OpinionBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ1774000
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

KEVIN SMITH vs. THE HOME DEPOT, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimant Western Pharmaceuticals. Western Pharmaceuticals' lien was dismissed by the WCJ due to failure to pay the lien activation fee as required by Labor Code Section 4903.06, and their failure to appear at the lien conference. Although the WCJ initially stated the petition for reconsideration was unverified, the Board noted it was, but still adopted the WCJ's reasoning to deny the petition. Therefore, the lien remains dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Reportlien claimantlien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06EAMS File Net Systemlien conferencedismissed with prejudiceWestern Pharmaceuticals
References
0
Case No. 06-Civ.-2268
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2008

In Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation

This consolidated class action lawsuit addresses whether pharmaceutical sales representatives (Reps) employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and corresponding New York and California state wage laws. Plaintiffs, current and former Reps, claim they qualify for overtime, while NPC argues they are exempt as outside salespersons or administrative employees. The Court granted summary judgment for NPC, finding that the Reps are exempt from overtime requirements as outside salespersons and administrative employees under both federal and state laws. The court also noted that some highly compensated employees would also be exempt, but did not need to fully rule on that point given the broader exemptions found.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionOutside Sales ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionPharmaceutical IndustryWage and Hour LawsClass ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor Law
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 24 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