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. 02 Civ. 4286, 02 Civ. 4297
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Buttar

Petitioners David Jacaruso, Joseph Scotti, and Michael E. Wallace moved to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of respondents Daljit S. Buttar and Par-amit Buttar. The Buttars cross-moved to confirm the award. The arbitration, conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), found the petitioners liable for misrepresentation, unauthorized trading, and fraud, and also as 'Control Persons,' jointly and severally liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court, applying standards of 'manifest disregard of the law' and 'manifest disregard of the facts,' found that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law by imposing respondeat superior liability on the petitioners for actions of a broker and by finding fraud liability without evidence of intent. Furthermore, the court found the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law and facts regarding control person liability. Consequently, the court granted the petitioners' motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the respondents' cross-motion to confirm it.

arbitrationvacaturconfirmationsecurities fraudcontrol person liabilitymanifest disregard of lawmanifest disregard of factsNASD arbitrationpunitive damagesrespondeat superior
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messier v. Bouchard Transportation

Plaintiff Richard Messier, a seaman, filed a maritime action against Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., initially alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, and seeking maintenance and cure for B-cell lymphoma. Messier later dropped his Jones Act claim. The primary legal question was the definition of "manifest" for admiralty purposes: whether an asymptomatic illness contracted while in service but diagnosed later qualifies for maintenance and cure. The court denied Messier's motion for summary judgment and granted Bouchard's cross-motion, ruling that "manifest" requires the exhibition of symptoms while in the service of the ship. Additionally, the court rejected Messier's alternative theory that he was entitled to maintenance and cure for lymphoma because it manifested while he was potentially eligible for maintenance and cure for a back injury, as he was not actively receiving such benefits. As a result, Messier's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as moot.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureSeamanB-cell LymphomaAsymptomatic DiseaseManifestation of IllnessSummary JudgmentSecond CircuitDisease Onset
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wien & Malkin LLP v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the vacatur of an arbitration award. Wien & Malkin LLP sought to remove Helmsley-Spear, Inc. as managing agent for several New York City properties. An arbitration panel denied Wien & Malkin's request, which was initially confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, after a remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, vacated the arbitration award, finding a 'manifest disregard of law' by the arbitrators regarding personal services contracts and proxy voting. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's decision under the 'manifest disregard of law' standard, which requires a showing that arbitrators knew and ignored a well-defined legal principle. The Court of Appeals found that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law in its conclusions regarding Helmsley-Spear as a valid successor, the proxy vote, or the voting agreement. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the original Supreme Court judgment confirming the arbitration award was reinstated.

Arbitration LawManifest Disregard of LawFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Contract LawPersonal Services ContractsPartnership LawSuccessor in InterestProxy VotingAppellate ReviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
28
Case No. ADJ6955681
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

PAUL WEAVER vs. CITY OF STOCKTON, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by CORVEL

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant, a former firefighter, sought benefits for leukemia, claiming it was industrially caused. The defendant argued the applicant was not entitled to the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 due to the timing of the cancer's manifestation and the statute's amendment. The Board affirmed the original award, finding that one medical evaluator's opinion provided substantial evidence that the applicant's leukemia manifested within the original 60-month window following his service termination. Therefore, the Board did not need to decide the retroactivity of the later 120-month amendment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaLeukemiaPermanent Partial DisabilityPresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.1Firefighter
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. 01 Civ. 6060; 01 Civ. 6062; 01 Civ. 11878; 02 Civ. 1719; 02 Civ. 1724; 02 Civ. 9952
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation

Defendants Pfizer, Inc. sought summary judgment against nine plaintiffs in an MDL concerning the diabetes drug Rezulin. The plaintiffs claimed either no injury, fear of future injury, or subcellular mitochondrial damage. The court ruled that while subcellular injury might establish Article III standing, it was not a compensable injury under Texas law without a clinically manifest detriment. Similarly, claims for fear of future injury failed under both Texas and Louisiana law due to the absence of a manifest physical injury or special circumstances. Economic claims for fraud and redhibition under Louisiana law were also dismissed. Consequently, the court granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of the specified plaintiffs.

Product LiabilitySummary JudgmentNo-Injury ClaimsFear of Future InjuryMitochondrial DamageSubcellular InjuryArticle III StandingTexas LawLouisiana Products Liability ActEconomic Damages
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03275 [217 AD3d 1168]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Matter of Jazmyne VV.

This case involves an appeal by Jazmyne VV. from an order of the Family Court of Cortland County, which adjudicated her a Person in Need of Supervision (PINS). The principal of Randall Middle School, Juliann Quinn, filed the PINS petition due to Jazmyne's habitual truancy and disobedient behavior. Jazmyne argued that the PINS petition was jurisdictionally defective, citing the absence of a manifestation determination hearing and the Probation Department's failure to provide its case record to Family Court. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that a manifestation determination hearing was not warranted as Jazmyne was not a special education student at the time, the record was made available to the court, and the petition adequately detailed diversion efforts.

PINSTruancySpecial Education Student StatusManifestation Determination HearingDiversion ServicesFamily Court Act Article 7Appellate ReviewJurisdictional DefectsCortland CountySchool Discipline
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acciardo v. Millennium Securities Corp.

Raymond J. Acciardo, the Petitioner-Respondent, sought confirmation of an arbitration award granted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. The award compensated Acciardo for wrongful discharge and defamation, including punitive damages against Millennium Securities Corporation and its senior management. Respondents-Cross-Petitioners Millennium, Todd Rome, Richard A. Sitomer, and Pamela L. Rockley petitioned to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the law concerning Form U-5 immunity and excessive punitive damages. The Court, presided over by Judge Batts in the Southern District of New York, upheld the arbitration award. It found no manifest disregard of the law, citing conflicting legal precedents on U-5 immunity and affirming the arbitrators' finding of malice and authority to award punitive damages.

Arbitration AwardConfirmationVacaturFederal Arbitration ActEmployment TerminationDefamationForm U-5Qualified PrivilegePunitive DamagesCompensatory Damages
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 95 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