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

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Republic Ins. Co., Inc. v. Fuller

Chief Justice Cornelius dissents from the majority's decision to overturn the trial court's findings. The core of the dissent argues that the insurance company failed to prove Fuller ratified a fraudulent settlement of his worker's compensation claim. Fuller's acceptance of benefits, the dissent contends, was not an act of ratification because he lacked full knowledge of the fraud and did not intend to validate the fraudulent act. Instead, he was likely attempting to mitigate a situation he perceived as irreversible. The dissent stresses that equity should provide a remedy against such fraud, and setting aside the settlement would not unduly harm the insurance company, merely restoring the parties to their original positions before the fraudulent settlement.

Fraudulent SettlementWorkers' Compensation ClaimRatification DoctrineAcceptance of BenefitsMistake of LawEquitable ReliefDissenting OpinionTrial Court FindingsInsurance Company BurdenAttorney Misconduct
References
10
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAllister v. Renu Industrial Tire Corp.

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Campbell

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted assault in the second degree after a nonjury trial, following an indictment for attempted rape and other charges. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The defendant appealed, arguing that attempted assault under Penal Law § 120.05 (3) is a legal impossibility because the statute imposes criminal responsibility for an unintended injury, and one cannot attempt to bring about an unintended result. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that an attempt requires an intent to commit a specific crime and bring about the proscribed result. Since Penal Law § 120.05 (3) does not require intent to cause injury, but rather intent to prevent an officer from performing a lawful duty while causing injury, there can be no attempt to commit a crime whose core result (injury) is not intended. Consequently, the crime of attempted assault in the second degree under this subdivision was deemed a legal impossibility, and the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the assault counts dismissed.

Criminal LawAttempted AssaultPenal LawSecond Degree AssaultIntent to InjureLegal ImpossibilityStrict LiabilityAppellate ReviewCriminal CulpabilityLawful Duty
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt Construction Corp. v. Grand Palais, LLC

Holt Construction Corp. initiated an action against Grand Palais, LLC, Grand Palais Development, Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, and Howard Lepow, seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, set aside fraudulent conveyances, and recover damages for diversion of trust assets. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Holt on multiple causes of action. Defendants appealed, and Holt cross-appealed from portions of the judgment entered January 19, 2012. The appellate court dismissed certain appeals, modified the judgment by dismissing the seventh cause of action and portions of the twelfth and thirteenth causes of action related to Lien Law § 13 (5), and reversed the dismissal of claims against Howard Lepow for violations of Lien Law §§ 72 and 77, awarding judgment in favor of Holt against Lepow for $935,342.55. As modified, the judgment was affirmed with costs to the plaintiff.

Mechanic's LienFraudulent ConveyanceDiversion of Trust AssetsDebtor and Creditor LawLien LawAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationNonjury TrialCorporate Officer LiabilityConstruction Contract
References
11
Case No. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonaccorso v. Toia

Barbara Bonaccorso's public assistance was terminated after she transferred a 1970 Datsun, which the Onondaga County Department of Social Services deemed an unutilized resource. This decision was upheld by Commissioner Toia. Bonaccorso sought judicial review under CPLR Article 78, arguing that she had attempted to sell the car prior to the agency's request and had no fraudulent intent, and that the Department failed to properly investigate her continuing eligibility. The court, presided over by Thomas J. Murphy, J., granted Bonaccorso's petition. It set aside Commissioner Toia's decision, certifying Bonaccorso and her children eligible for continued public assistance retroactive to February 1, 1977, finding no fraud and faulting the agency's investigation.

Public assistanceWelfare benefitsDiscontinuance of aidAsset transferCPLR Article 78Judicial reviewAdministrative determinationEligibilitySocial Services LawRetroactive benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, Inc.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Hecht, a former sales representative, sued Commerce Clearing House (CCH) and several individual defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and common-law principles of fraud and prima facie tort. Hecht alleged he was terminated for refusing to participate in and for attempting to rectify fraudulent activities by CCH employees, including forgery and false billing. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that Hecht lacked standing to sue under civil RICO because his injuries as a "whistleblower" or "non-participant" were not directly or proximately caused by the alleged predicate acts. Additionally, the court dismissed his RICO conspiracy claim due to improper pleading and consequently dismissed the pendent state law claims.

RICOCivil RICOFraudWhistleblowerWrongful TerminationStandingProximate CauseMail FraudWire FraudConspiracy
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,765 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