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. ADJ7776330
Regular
May 30, 2014

STANLEY SILO vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

This case involves Stanley Silo's workers' compensation claim against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Silo's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition being untimely filed. The WCAB further indicated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the WCJ's report.

ADJ7776330Petition for ReconsiderationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardtimely-fileduntimelyDismissedWCJ Report and Recommendationadministrative law judgeApplicant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romano v. Stanley

Marie Romano sued Harold Stanley's estate and three establishments (Jack’s Oyster House, Martel’s of Broadway, and Dee Dee’s Tavern) under the Dram Shop Act after being injured in an automobile accident caused by Nancy Stanley, who was allegedly intoxicated. Jack’s Oyster House and Martel’s of Broadway moved for summary judgment, arguing Stanley was not "visibly intoxicated" when served alcohol on their premises. Plaintiff submitted an expert’s affidavit based on Stanley’s high blood and urine alcohol levels, asserting she must have been visibly intoxicated at the time. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an expert's affidavit relying solely on blood alcohol content to infer visible intoxication, without a stated scientific basis or personal professional experience in judging live intoxication manifestations, is speculative and conclusory and lacks sufficient probative force to defeat summary judgment.

Dram Shop ActVisible IntoxicationBlood Alcohol ContentExpert TestimonySummary JudgmentForensic PathologistCircumstantial EvidenceAlcoholic Beverage Control LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curry v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

Plaintiff Christian Leigh Curry sued Morgan Stanley & Co. for employment discrimination, alleging racial and perceived sexual orientation discrimination after being fired as a first-year analyst. Morgan Stanley contended Curry was fired for repeated expense account fraud. Curry sought expense records of senior executives, claiming a corporate culture of fraud to justify his own actions. The Court denied Curry's renewed request for discovery, finding his allegations of widespread abuse unsupported and his conduct (fabricating receipts for personal purchases as overtime meals) significantly different from any minor errors found in other analysts' records. The Court also found Curry not 'similarly situated' to the senior executives whose records he sought.

Employment DiscriminationExpense Account FraudMisconductDiscovery DisputeSimilarly SituatedCorporate CultureEmployee MisconductFraudulent ReimbursementRacial DiscriminationSexual Orientation Discrimination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 09 Civ. 8197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

Citibank, N.A. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International

This case involves a financial dispute between Citibank, N.A. and Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC (MSIP) stemming from a credit default swap agreement. Citibank sued MSIP for breach of contract, and MSIP filed counterclaims including reformation and equitable estoppel. Previously, the court granted Citibank's motion for judgment on its breach of contract claim and dismissed MSIP's initial counterclaims. In this current ruling, the court addresses MSIP's amended counterclaims. The court denies Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding MSIP's counterclaim for reformation based on mutual mistake, finding it plausible. However, Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted for MSIP's counterclaim for equitable estoppel, which is dismissed with prejudice, as MSIP could not show prejudice related to the original swap based on later communications.

Credit Default SwapBreach of ContractReformation (contract law)Equitable EstoppelJudgment on the PleadingsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Mutual MistakeFinancial InstitutionsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)
References
28
Case No. 530528
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Stanley G. Phillips

Claimant Stanley G. Phillips suffered work-related injuries in 2007, leading to a permanent partial disability and capped indemnity benefits. He sought an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3) and reclassification to permanent total disability due to a change in medical condition. The Workers' Compensation Board denied both requests, finding no extreme financial hardship and ruling C-27 reclassification forms untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's denial of the extreme hardship request, citing substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the Board's decision on reclassification, holding that the Board improperly applied timeliness rules under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6-a) and remitted the matter for further proceedings to consider all medical evidence. Appeals from reconsideration denials were affirmed for the upheld decisions and dismissed as academic for the reversed decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityExtreme Hardship RedeterminationReclassification of DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityIndemnity Benefit CapWorkers' Compensation LawMedical Condition ChangeTimeliness of FilingAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
14
Case No. CA 13-00513
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2014

DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOESSL, STANLEY

Plaintiff Dryden Mutual Insurance Company initiated an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Stanley Goessl in an underlying tort action, which arose from a fire during plumbing work. Defendants AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc. and its insurer, The Main Street America Group, also denied coverage for Goessl. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Dryden Mutual and against Main Street America Group. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, declaring that Dryden Mutual is obligated to defend and indemnify Goessl and reimburse his attorney's fees, based on his status as a sole proprietor insured by them. Conversely, The Main Street America Group was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Goessl, as he was deemed an independent contractor, not an employee of AP Daino, according to their policy's plain meaning and their business arrangement. Sconiers, J., dissented, arguing that the trial court's finding of Goessl as an employee should have been upheld.

Insurance coverage disputeBusiness liabilityIndependent contractor classificationEmployee statusDuty to indemnifyDuty to defendSubcontracting agreementDeclaratory judgment actionAppellate review of judgmentContract interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Offshore Exploration & Production LLC v. Morgan Stanley Private Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff, Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC (Offshore), initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Morgan Stanley, acting as an Escrow Agent, must release over $75 million from an escrow fund to defendants Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) and Ecopetrol S.A. An arbitration panel had previously ordered Offshore to pay this amount to KNOC and Ecopetrol. However, KNOC and Ecopetrol argued the payment should come directly from Offshore to preserve the escrow fund for other obligations, contending that this dispute falls under the arbitration clause of their Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action pending arbitration, while Offshore cross-moved for summary judgment. The court, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring international arbitration, found that the SPA's broad arbitration clause, which incorporated the American Arbitration Association's International Arbitration Rules, clearly delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitration panel. The court rejected Offshore's arguments that the dispute arose solely under the Escrow Agreement or that a conflict existed between the SPA's mandatory arbitration clause and the Escrow Agreement's permissive forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action, pending the arbitration panel's decision on arbitrability and the merits, and denied Offshore's motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

ArbitrationInternational ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsDeclaratory JudgmentContract DisputeEscrow AgreementStock Purchase AgreementArbitrabilityForum SelectionFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashland, Inc. v. MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Ashland Inc. and AshThree LLC (Ashland) sued Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. for securities fraud and state law claims related to their purchase and retention of Auction Rate Securities (ARS), specifically student loan auction rate securities (SLARS). Ashland alleged that Morgan Stanley made false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the liquidity and safety of SLARS and failed to disclose its market-making activities. Morgan Stanley moved to dismiss the complaint. The Court dismissed the federal securities fraud claim without prejudice, finding Ashland failed to sufficiently plead scienter and that its reliance was unreasonable. All state law claims, including common law fraud, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, were dismissed with prejudice, with several being preempted by New York’s Martin Act.

Securities FraudAuction Rate SecuritiesStudent Loan Auction Rate Securities (SLARS)PSLRARule 10b-5 ClaimCommon Law FraudPromissory EstoppelMartin Act PreemptionPleading ScienterReasonable Reliance
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce two subpoenas against Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., stemming from race and/or sex discrimination charges filed by four African-American women employees. Morgan Stanley contested enforcement, arguing against sharing information with charging parties due to a potential settlement and an existing protective order from a previous case (Schieffelin litigation), and claiming the subpoenas were irrelevant, vague, or burdensome. The Court largely sided with the EEOC, affirming its independent investigative powers despite individual settlements and upholding the right to share information with charging parties as per Supreme Court precedent. The subpoenas were enforced, but with modifications that limited the scope of requested 'informal complaints' and upheld the protective order from the prior Schieffelin case for any overlapping documents.

Employment DiscriminationSubpoena EnforcementEEOC InvestigationConfidentiality OrderCollateral EstoppelCharging Parties RightsTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSettlement ImpactRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 79 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