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
Jun 17, 1991

Edwards v. Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates

The plaintiff, an employee of Hayim & Company, a carpet warehouse, suffered personal injuries when he fell approximately six feet while replacing a plywood shelf at his workplace. He had initially received Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced an action against the premises owner, Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates, alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant owner's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context, and Labor Law § 200 liability was inapplicable as the defendant owner did not maintain direction or control over the plaintiff's duties.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySafe WorkplaceRoutine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewNegligenceNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ7192030
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

Rolando Lemus vs. TWENTY FOUR SEVEN SECURITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge's order continuing a hearing was procedural, not final. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, ruling he failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the three-week continuance. The applicant's refusal to agree to a rescheduled date and their counsel's verification issues further supported the Board's decision. Ultimately, the Board sought to expedite the case by remanding it for a prompt priority conference.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRolando LemusTwenty Four Seven Securitypetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalcontinuancepriority conferenceadministrative law judgesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

This opinion addresses a motion for class certification in consolidated actions alleging securities and common law fraud. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class against various defendants, including Bear Stearns & Co. and Baird Patrick & Co., for a scheme to manipulate the prices of 'Blech Securities' between October 1991 and September 1994. The court reviewed the class action requirements under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finding that these requirements were satisfied, the court granted the motion for class certification, with the creation of three subclasses to manage the litigation efficiently.

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Four Points Shipping & Trading, Inc. v. Poloron Israel, L.P.

The case concerns a dispute over a canceled shipment of prefabricated housing parts. Plaintiff Four Points Shipping and Trading, Inc. sued Poloron Israel, L.P., and TMT Homes, Inc., for lost profits and out-of-pocket expenses. The core issue revolved around a contract between Four Points and Poloron, contingent on a separate manufacturing agreement becoming "effective," which the court interpreted as actual production capability, not just signing. Due to the manufacturer's financial difficulties, the parts were never produced. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the lost profits claim, citing contractual exculpatory clauses and the speculative nature of the damages. However, it denied summary judgment for both parties on the out-of-pocket expenses, allowing Four Points to pursue this claim if it can demonstrate it was misled by Poloron. The court also suggested alternative dispute resolution for the remaining issue.

Contract disputeMaritime lawNew York lawSummary judgmentLost profitsOut-of-pocket expensesBreach of contractContingent contractExculpatory clauseContract interpretation
References
39
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Case No. 02 Civ. 910
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiffs, a group of retirement systems and a union, filed a class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud against Alstom S.A., its subsidiaries Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), Alstom USA, and executives Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joseph Janovec. The claims involve violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from ATI's alleged understatement of costs on railcar contracts, particularly for New Jersey Transit. These accounting improprieties purportedly led to an overstatement of Alstom's income in public financial reports. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter against Alstom, active participation and scienter against Rambaud-Measson and Janovec, and a plausible veil-piercing theory for Alstom USA's liability. The decision allows the case to proceed, underscoring that the plaintiffs' detailed new allegations, including executive knowledge of cost overruns, met the heightened pleading standards for fraud and control liability.

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Counterman v. Chater

Plaintiff Hertha Counterman, representing her minor daughter Tammy, initiated this action to appeal the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits. The initial application, based on Tammy's asthma, allergies, learning disability, and later post-traumatic stress disorder, was rejected by an Administrative Law Judge and upheld by the Appeals Council. The court, led by Chief Judge Larimer, reviewed the Commissioner's decision for substantial evidence, applying the four-step evaluation process for child disability under the Social Security Act. Ultimately, the court determined that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, concluding that Tammy's impairments did not meet the "Listing of Impairments" or constitute a "marked" functional limitation. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

SSI Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActChild DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewIndividualized Functional AssessmentListing of ImpairmentsAnxiety DisordersPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
4
Case No. Docket No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Rubet v. Commissioner of Social Security

Maria Rubet, claiming disability due to a nervous condition since October 1993, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Following a remand and a subsequent hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again found Rubet not disabled, a determination adopted by the Commissioner. Rubet failed to respond to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and a court order. The Court, after reviewing the record and adopting the Commissioner's analysis, found substantial evidence, including medical evaluations, to support the ALJ's finding that Rubet was not disabled. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social SecuritySSI BenefitsDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentAppealsJudicial ReviewCommissioner Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,311 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