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

Bernhardt v. Tradition North America

Donald Bernhardt sued his former employers, Tradition North America Inc. and Tradition Asiel Securities, Inc., alleging breach of an implied employment contract. Bernhardt claimed he was wrongfully terminated after exposing illegal securities schemes and reporting them to the SEC, violating an implied agreement that the firm would operate lawfully. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and sought Rule 11 sanctions against Bernhardt's attorney. The court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that Bernhardt failed to state a plausible claim for breach of an implied contract under New York's at-will employment doctrine. However, the court denied the request for Rule 11 sanctions, finding the lawsuit, while unsuccessful, did not constitute sanctionable conduct.

Implied contractEmployment at willWrongful terminationWhistleblowerSecurities law violationsMotion to dismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 11 sanctionsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maida v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

Plaintiff Anthony Maida sued Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) after his long-term disability benefits were terminated. Maida initially claimed physical disability due to a fall and later asserted mental disability from post-traumatic stress disorder. The court granted LINA's motion for summary judgment on the physical disability claim, finding LINA's denial was not arbitrary and capricious based on multiple medical reports. Additionally, LINA was awarded $10,155 on its counterclaim for overpaid benefits. However, the court vacated LINA's rejection of the mental disability claim, deeming it arbitrary and capricious due to the lack of proper medical review, and remanded the matter to LINA for reconsideration, while retaining jurisdiction.

Disability BenefitsERISA LitigationSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious ReviewRemand to AdministratorPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPhysical Injury ClaimMental Health ClaimInsurance Policy DisputeOverpayment Reimbursement
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1979

Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall
References
9
Case No. ADJ7110663
Regular
May 09, 2016

WILLIAM BO MATTHEWS vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, NEW YORK GIANTS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA/ACE USA, DENVER GOLD, THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding workers' compensation liability for a professional football player's cumulative trauma injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and modified the arbitrator's award, finding the applicant sustained two separate cumulative trauma injuries due to distinct periods of employment exposure. Consequently, the WCAB ruled that the petitioner, Insurance Company of North America/ACE USA (ESIS), is not liable for contribution to another insurer, The North River Insurance Company (NRIC), which had mistakenly paid a portion of a settlement. The Board affirmed the finding of two injuries, citing a significant break in employment as creating separate compensable periods, but rescinded the award to NRIC, holding NRIC should recover nothing from ESIS.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationArbitration DecisionContributionCumulative InjuryProfessional Football PlayerInsurance Company of North America/ACE USAZenith Insurance CompanyThe North River Insurance CompanyLabor Code Section 5500.5
References
9
Case No. ADJ3393930 (AHM 0089017) ADJ2735537 (AHM 0094395)
Regular
May 06, 2013

DAVID CARMONA vs. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, FIREMAN'S FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration in *Carmona v. BMW of North America*, finding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report insufficient. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior decision and returned the case for further proceedings and a new decision. While the WCJ intended to correct a clerical error regarding cumulative trauma dates, the WCAB felt further development of the record was needed on temporary total disability, but not apportionment related to Dr. Stewart. This is not a final decision on the merits.

DAVID CARMONABMW OF NORTH AMERICAZURICH NORTH AMERICAFIREMAN'S FUNDWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGECLERICAL ERRORCUMULATIVE TRAUMATEMPORARY TOTAL DISABILITY
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of North Hempstead v. Village of North Hills

Plaintiffs, including the Town of North Hempstead, homeowners, and residents, initiated an action against various Village defendants to enforce federal environmental laws, challenging land use and zoning decisions, specifically the downzoning of certain parcels in the Village of North Hills. Frank Martucci and Roslyn Pines, Inc., owners of a significantly affected 29.1-acre tract, sought to intervene as defendants, citing their direct interest in the property and the potential negative impact of the lawsuit on their development plans and economic interests. Plaintiffs opposed their intervention, primarily on technical grounds regarding the sufficiency of their application. The court ultimately granted the motion to intervene, finding that Martucci and Roslyn Pines, Inc. met all requirements of Rule 24(a), F.R.Civ.P., as their interests were not adequately represented by the existing governmental defendants and their active participation would ensure a more robust presentation of the economic arguments pertinent to the case.

Environmental LawLand UseZoningIntervention as of RightRule 24(a) F.R.Civ.P.Real EstateProperty RightsAdequate RepresentationEconomic InterestsMunicipal Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between North Country Community College Ass'n & North Country Community College

Petitioner Michael Leahy, a tenured accounting professor, was terminated by North Country Community College for misconduct involving a heated verbal exchange with his supervisor. Leahy and his union, the North Country Community College Association of Professionals, filed a grievance that proceeded to arbitration. The arbitrator found serious misconduct but modified the penalty to a 15-month suspension without pay, along with anger management counseling, rather than termination. Petitioners sought to confirm the arbitration award, while respondents cross-moved to vacate it. The Supreme Court confirmed the award, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, concluding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in modifying the penalty and that the award was not irrational or violative of strong public policy.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityPublic Policy ChallengePenalty ModificationAnger ManagementJudicial Review of ArbitrationDisciplinary Action
References
8
Case No. ADJ10168929 ADJ10047992
Regular
Jan 31, 2019

MARYEL KAUHANE-JONES vs. JOHN SPAETH, O.D., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns Zenith Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The administrative law judge found the applicant sustained a single cumulative injury and that Zenith, as the sole carrier during the relevant one-year liability period preceding the applicant's last day of employment, was solely liable. Zenith argued the liability period should have been earlier based on the applicant's alleged date of injury under Labor Code section 5412. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's reasoning that compensable disability requires wage loss or ratable permanent disability, which occurred after the applicant's employment ended and was definitively established by an agreed medical evaluator.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of FactAward and OrderIndustrial InjuryOpticianOffice ManagerCumulative InjuryPermanent DisabilityLabor Code section 5500.5
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Norris

This nonjury trial concerns an automobile accident where claimants Gladys M. Norris and her daughter Lisa were injured by a stolen Cadillac owned by Arc Leasing Corp. and insured by American Transit Insurance Company. The core issue was whether American Transit properly disclaimed coverage given its failure to provide written notice. The court, citing Insurance Law § 167(8) and precedent like Zappone v Home Ins. Co., determined that a denial of coverage based on lack of permissive use (due to a stolen vehicle) is akin to a policy exclusion, thus requiring written notice. American Transit's failure to provide such notice, even if claimants had actual knowledge, precluded it from asserting the 'stolen car' defense. Consequently, the petitioner's application for a permanent stay of arbitration was granted, and American Transit was ordered to afford coverage to Arc Leasing within policy limits.

Automobile AccidentInsurance Coverage DisputeDisclaimer of CoverageLack of Permissive UseStolen VehicleUninsured Motorist ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActionWaiver of DefenseStatutory Notice RequirementPolicy Exclusion Interpretation
References
10
Case No. No. 24
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Francis Nemeth v. Brenntag North America

Plaintiff's spouse, Florence Nemeth, died from peritoneal mesothelioma after daily use of Desert Flower talcum powder, which plaintiff alleged contained asbestos supplied by defendant Whittaker, Clark & Daniels. A jury found the defendant liable, awarding damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, dismissing the complaint against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. The Court ruled that plaintiff's expert testimony and scientific evidence were insufficient as a matter of law to establish specific causation in this toxic tort case. It emphasized that while precise quantification of exposure is not always necessary, sufficient exposure levels to the toxin, supported by generally accepted methodologies, must be demonstrated.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureToxic tortCausationExpert testimonySufficiency of evidenceTalcum powderProduct liabilityAppellate reviewScientific evidence
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 1,954 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