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
Mar 26, 1991

Square D Co. v. Schneider S.A.

Plaintiff Square D Company alleged that defendant Schneider, S.A. and its affiliates were engaged in an illegal plan to acquire Square D through a hostile tender offer and proxy fight. Square D filed an Amended and Supplemental Complaint, claiming violations of Sections 7 and 8 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Defendants moved to dismiss these counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing lack of standing and flaws in the plaintiff's legal theories. The Court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, affirming Square D's standing to bring the antitrust claims and accepting the 'agency theory' for Section 8 liability at this preliminary stage. The Court also denied the defendants' application for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), citing the expedited schedule of the case and the potential for hindering resolution.

Antitrust LawClayton ActSherman ActHostile TakeoverProxy FightCorporate AcquisitionMotion to DismissAntitrust InjuryStandingInterlocking Directorates
References
11
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

In re Moises D.

This appeal arises from an amended order of the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions alleging that Moisés D. and Noami D. were neglected children. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, adjudicating Moisés D. and Noami D. as neglected children and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. The evidence detailed the father's history of paranoid schizophrenia and past instances of severe abuse and neglect towards his other children, including physical violence and a dangerous incident with an autistic son. The mother was found to have failed to protect the children and demonstrated a faulty understanding of parental duties, leading the court to conclude a substantial risk of harm to Moisés D. and Noami D. without supervision. The decision emphasized the necessity of a dispositional hearing to determine the children's well-being and maintain family integrity.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActParental RightsMental IllnessParanoid SchizophreniaChild AbuseAppellate ReviewDispositional HearingRisk AssessmentParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00935 [180 AD3d 1331]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2020

Matter of Emma D. (Kelly v. D.)

This case involves two appeals concerning Emma D. In Appeal No. 1, the Ontario County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated a neglect proceeding against the mother, Kelly V.(D.). The mother's motion to change venue to Monroe County was denied due to her refusal to provide her actual residence. In Appeal No. 2, the grandmother, Margarita D., commenced a custody proceeding against the mother. Custody was granted to the grandmother, supported by findings of extraordinary circumstances including the mother's neglect, unstable living situation, mental health issues, and failure to address the child's special needs. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed both orders, including the supervised visitation arrangement between the mother and grandmother.

Child NeglectCustody DisputeFamily Court ActVenue ChangeExtraordinary CircumstancesSupervised VisitationParental RightsChild WelfareAppellate ReviewParental Fitness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.D. v. Board of Education of the City School District

Plaintiffs A.D. and M.D., on behalf of their minor child E.D., brought an action under the IDEA to review a State Review Officer's (SRO) decision. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) award of tuition reimbursement for E.D.'s attendance at the private Rebecca School, despite agreeing that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court reversed the SRO's finding that Rebecca School was an inappropriate placement, concluding that the school's individualized program was designed to meet E.D.'s unique needs. Consequently, the Court ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for July 2007 through June 2008, totaling $62,590, but denied reimbursement for July and August 2008 due to unexhausted administrative remedies. The Court also granted defendants' motion to strike certain evidentiary materials submitted by plaintiffs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActIDEAFree Appropriate Public EducationFAPETuition ReimbursementPrivate School PlacementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review Officer
References
31
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02617
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over cash proceeds from the demutualization of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). Petitioner, Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP, purchased the professional liability insurance policy and paid all associated premiums. Respondent, Rachel S. Title, M.D., was the named insured but did not contribute to the policy costs. The Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds, including accrued interest, and directed the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, to enter judgment accordingly. The decision affirmed that awarding the proceeds to the respondent would constitute unjust enrichment, as she did not pay for the policy or bargain for the demutualization benefits.

Demutualization proceedsProfessional liability insuranceUnjust enrichmentInsurance policyPremium paymentsAppellate DivisionCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,923 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