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

Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.

The plaintiff, BTG, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Genentech, Rogers & Wells, and John Kidd, seeking a declaration of patent invalidity and non-infringement, coupled with claims of unfair competition, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, antitrust violations, and prima facie tort under New York law. The defendants moved to dismiss claims 2 and 5-12 of the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing all aforementioned claims. The ruling found that Genentech's prior ITC action was not objectively baseless and thus protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity, preventing BTG's antitrust and related state common law claims. Additionally, the court affirmed that ITC determinations, while having preclusive effect on certain issues, do not preempt federal district courts' exclusive jurisdiction over patent validity.

Antitrust LawPatent LawDeclaratory JudgmentsMotion to DismissSham LitigationNoerr-Pennington DoctrineMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessPrima Facie TortUnfair Competition
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavazos v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

The case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit to overturn a final ruling by the Industrial Accident Board. The dismissal was due to the appellant's failure to file the suit within the mandatory 20-day limitation period prescribed by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307 § 5. The appellant contended that worker's compensation law should be liberally construed, citing precedents like Ward and Standard Fire Insurance Company. However, the court affirmed that the 20-day filing period is jurisdictional and mandatory. It clarified that Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for an enlargement of time for mailed documents, was inapplicable because the appellant's petition was filed late, not merely mailed late. The court concluded that applying Rule 5 would improperly extend the statute of limitations, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Statute of LimitationsJurisdictionTimely FilingAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident Board RulingRule 5 TRCPMandatory Statutory PeriodLiberal Construction DoctrineProcedural DismissalWorker's Benefits Appeal
References
7
Case No. 2017-05-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2017

Glasgow, Jack v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc.

Jack Glasgow, an employee, sustained multiple injuries after falling while installing insulation for 31-W Insulation Co., Inc. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, asserting willful misconduct and willful failure to use safety devices as affirmative defenses, citing Glasgow's prior similar injury and alleged disregard of safety protocols. The trial court initially awarded benefits, finding the employer failed to prove bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, as Glasgow was not disciplined for the previous incident and was subsequently rehired. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer did not demonstrate consistent, bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, which is a required element to establish its affirmative defenses. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryWillful MisconductSafety DeviceAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementEmployee SafetyEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawAppeals Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ1384238 (SAC 0366460)
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

ROSA VIRGEN vs. MACY'S WEST, MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES-RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's West's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision not to grant a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found that a late supplemental report alone does not mandate a replacement QME under LC 4062.5 or AD Rule 31.5(a)(12). Granting a replacement QME for untimely supplemental reporting is discretionary and requires a showing of good cause, which Macy's failed to demonstrate. The Appeals Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over the validity of replacement panels.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluationPQMEReplacement PanelMedical DirectorTimelinessSupplemental ReportGood CausePrejudice
References
4
Case No. ADJ7643460
Regular
May 01, 2017

Tracy Lee vs. XCHANGING, GRANITE STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns Defendant's Petition for Removal seeking a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel due to a QME's untimely supplemental report. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding Defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. While the QME's report was late, Labor Code Section 4062.5 and Rule 31.5(a)(12) do not mandate replacement for untimely supplemental reports, making the decision discretionary. The WCJ's decision not to order a replacement was reasonable given the QME's extensive involvement and the lack of a mandatory replacement provision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelsupplemental reportuntimelysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code section 4062.5Rule 31.5(a)(12)
References
5
Case No. ADJ15951486, ADJ15951487
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JEFF CRAIL vs. AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Amtrust North America and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a Joint Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued on May 20, 2025. The F&O had ordered the replacement of Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME) Dr. Wiseman due to his failure to properly serve his report. The defendant argued that the court improperly interpreted Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)(12) and that a Declaration of Readiness (DOR) does not constitute both an objection and a request for a replacement panel. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision to replace Dr. Wiseman. The Board's decision cited its en banc ruling in Vazquez v. Inocensio Renteria, reinforcing that a QME's failure to timely issue and serve a report, and engaging in ex parte communication by serving only one party, grants a party the right to seek replacement. The Board also emphasized the informal nature of pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings, as established in Perez v. Chicago Dogs, when addressing the applicant's DOR.

PQMEPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrdersAdministrative Director RuleDeclaration of ReadinessIrreparable HarmMandatory Settlement ConferenceOncology PanelQualified Medical ExaminerProof of Service
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Polak v. Continental Hosts, Ltd.

The case involves two plaintiffs, Jack and Anthony Polak (shareholders of Continental Hosts, Ltd.), who filed a class action complaint alleging a violation of Rule 10(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Continental Hosts, Ltd. and individual defendants. The Merger Plaintiff claimed the $12 per share merger price was inadequate and the Delaware appraisal right was an unfair burden. The Disclosure Plaintiff alleged selling shares at an artificially low price due to defendants' failure to disseminate financial information. The court, citing Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, held that an inadequate merger price and state appraisal rights do not constitute fraud or manipulation under Rule 10b-5. It also found no duty of disclosure for non-reporting companies or for individual defendants, and that the "disclose or abstain" rule only applies to contemporaneous traders, which the Disclosure Plaintiff was not. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, with pendent state law claims also dismissed.

Securities LawRule 10b-5Motion to DismissClass ActionShareholder RightsCorporate MergersDuty to DiscloseInsider TradingDelaware LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 13,132 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