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

Sprint Communications Co. v. Jasco Trading, Inc.

The case involves Plaintiffs Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Nextel Corporation, Boost Worldwide, Inc., and Virgin Mobile USA, L.P. (collectively 'Sprint') against Defendants Jasco Trading, Inc., Alan Savdie, YRB Trading Corp., and Yehudah Bodek. Plaintiffs initiated the action alleging various claims including breach of contract, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, stemming from an alleged 'Bulk Handset Trafficking Scheme.' The court considered two primary motions: Plaintiffs' motion to enforce a settlement agreement with the YRB Defendants and the YRB Defendants' motion to stay the case pending arbitration. Applying the Winston factors, the Court determined that no binding settlement agreement was reached, citing an implied reservation of the right not to be bound in the absence of a signed writing, disagreement on a material term, and the nature of such agreements typically requiring formalization. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement. The YRB Defendants' motion to stay for arbitration was also denied, but without prejudice, due to their denial of knowledge regarding the arbitration agreement and insufficient briefing on the merits.

Contract LawSettlement EnforceabilityOral AgreementsWinston FactorsArbitration ClauseMotion to EnforceMotion to StayBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionTrademark Infringement
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baer v. Sprint Long Distance

Theresa Baer, a former Sprint PCS employee, sued Sprint PCS for defamation, malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, and hostile work environment under New York law. Baer was discharged after several thousand dollars went missing from stores she managed. Sprint Corporate Security investigated and reported the matter to Port Chester Police, leading to grand larceny charges against Baer, which were later dropped. The court granted Sprint PCS's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The judge found no actionable tort for civil conspiracy in New York, qualified privilege for defamation claims, and no favorable determination on the merits or commencement of proceedings by Sprint for malicious prosecution. Additionally, the hostile work environment claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Summary JudgmentDefamationMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyHostile Work EnvironmentProbable CauseQualified PrivilegeEmployee DischargeTheft AllegationsNew York Law
References
19
Case No. ADJ828729 (VNO 0514052)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

LEONEL ARRIOLA vs. SPRINT PCS NEXTEL, CNA RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant sought reconsideration of a November 24, 2009, Findings and Award which found an industrial injury to the back, neurologic system, headaches, and ears, but excluded psychological injury. The WCJ later vacated that award due to clerical error. Applicant's petition for reconsideration, filed after the award was vacated, is therefore moot. The Board dismissed the petition and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABArriolaSprint PCS NextelCNA Risk ManagementPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injuryback injuryneurologic system
References
0
Case No. No. 11 Civ. 3041(JPO)
Regular Panel Decision

Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Plaintiff Vincent Emilio filed a class action complaint against Sprint Spectrum L.P. after an arbitrator's award authorized him to pursue his claims in court. Sprint moved to dismiss the complaint and strike class allegations. The District Court denied Sprint's motion, ruling that Sprint was collaterally estopped from arguing against the applicability of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA) to Emilio's claims, as this issue was previously litigated and decided in arbitration. The court also held that Sprint was precluded from asserting arbitration provisions against other putative class members, as the confirmed arbitration award explicitly authorized Emilio to pursue a class action.

Class ActionArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActKansas Consumer Protection ActCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionMotion to DismissMotion to StrikeConsumer ProtectionWireless Services
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lauria v. Donahue

John Lauria sued his employer, Nextel of New York, Inc., and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and various state law claims (negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of implied contract). Lauria claimed exposure to tuberculosis and viral pneumonia in the workplace and subsequent termination for refusing to sign a liability waiver. His wife, Dawn Lauria, also sought damages for loss of consortium. The court dismissed all ADA claims against individual defendants and Dawn Lauria with prejudice, citing no individual liability under ADA and her lack of standing. State law claims for negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of implied contract were dismissed without prejudice, with leave granted to file an amended complaint. The court found that Workers' Compensation Law barred negligence claims and that the IIED claim was time-barred.

ADA DiscriminationWorkplace RetaliationIndividual Liability ADALoss of Consortium ClaimsWorkers' Compensation BarERISA PreemptionIntentional Infliction Emotional DistressBreach Implied ContractTuberculosis ExposureViral Pneumonia Exposure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Sprint/United Management Co.

Plaintiff Thomas Howard sued defendants Sprint/United Management Company, Sprint Corporation, Mueller, and Guerriero for retaliation under Title VII, New York Human Rights Law § 296, and New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, along with a breach of contract claim. Howard alleged retaliation after reporting several instances of sexual harassment involving co-workers Smolen and Busciglio. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for their actions, including the elimination of Howard's position and not promoting him. The Court dismissed Howard's N.Y.H.R.L. claims against the corporate defendants and Guerriero, and also dismissed his breach of contract claim, finding no express contractual limitation on employment-at-will. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the Title VII and LAD claims, concluding that Howard presented sufficient evidence for a jury to infer improper conduct and retaliation, and that issues of fact regarding the causal connection and defendants' reasons precluded summary judgment.

RetaliationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWrongful TerminationHostile Work EnvironmentBreach of Contract
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Sprint/Nextel

Claimant sustained head and neck injuries in 2006 from an air-conditioning duct. Her workers' compensation claim was established for these injuries. Subsequently, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no causally related back injury or psychiatric disability, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish a causal link for her alleged back injury and that the Board's determination regarding psychiatric disability was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausationDisability ClaimBack InjuryPsychiatric DisabilityMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Posner v. Sprint/United Management Co.

Plaintiff David Posner sued his former employer, Sprint/Unlimited Management Company, and employees Frank Bromberg and Michael Desa, for age discrimination under federal, state, and city law, and defamation. Posner, 60 years old and with nearly 20 years of service, was fired for activating toll-free lines under customer accounts for personal use, taking advantage of discounted rates and increasing his commissions, in violation of company policy. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Posner failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence of age discrimination and that his conduct indisputably justified his termination, thus granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the case with prejudice.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentDefamationCompany Policy ViolationToll-Free LinesDiscount AbuseProtected ClassMcDonnell Douglas TestPrima Facie Case
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Elf Aquitaine, Inc.

Federal Insurance Company sued PCS Phosphate Co. and other defendants for $609,898 in retrospective premiums under Workers Compensation and General Liability Policies. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment: Federal sought judgment on the total premiums owed, while PCS moved to dismiss claims related to the Workers Compensation Policy, arguing Federal's payments were improper under North Carolina law due to not being the insurer at the time of last exposure. The court, Colleen McMahon, District Judge, denied both motions. Federal's motion was denied because it failed to adequately explain its premium calculations and the connection between various exhibits. PCS's motion was denied as it failed to demonstrate that North Carolina law should apply to the Workers Compensation Policy and did not definitively prove Federal was not the insurer at the time of last exposure, leaving material facts in dispute. The court also noted PCS's prior involvement in settlements with Federal.

Summary JudgmentInsurance PolicyRetrospective PremiumsWorkers CompensationGeneral LiabilityChoice of LawConflict of LawsNorth Carolina LawNew York LawInsurer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perfect Dental, PLLC v. Allstate Insurance

In this consolidated action, plaintiffs Perfect Dental Care, P.C., Zodiac Dental, PLLC, and Smooth Dental PLLC (Dental PCs) sought unpaid insurance claims from Allstate Insurance Company and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Insurers). The Insurers countersued alleging insurance fraud and unjust enrichment, and initiated a third-party action against various individuals and entities. The Insurers moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment that Dental PCs could not recover for services provided by dentists and physical therapists, and for summary judgment on their fraud and unjust enrichment counterclaims. The court denied summary judgment concerning dentists' services, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their employment status. However, it granted summary judgment for the Insurers regarding physical therapy services, as Dental PCs conceded these services were provided by non-employees. Consequently, the court also denied summary judgment on the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, as their resolution depended on the unresolved employment status of the dentists.

Insurance ClaimsHealthcare ServicesContract LawSummary JudgmentProfessional CorporationsIndependent ContractorsEmployment LawFraud AllegationsUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 15 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