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

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

Addei v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

A surgeon's medical license was revoked by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct due to findings of moral unfitness from sexual harassment of co-workers and fraudulent practice on employment applications. The petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court upheld the Committee's jurisdiction and the findings of moral unfitness and fraud, dismissing claims of statutory vagueness. However, the court deemed the penalty of license revocation excessively harsh and "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given mitigating factors, equivocal findings on the fraud charge, and no impact on patient care. Consequently, the court indicated that the severe penalty should not stand.

Professional MisconductLicense RevocationMoral UnfitnessFraudulent PracticeSexual HarassmentEmployment ApplicationsDue ProcessVague StatuteDisproportionate PenaltyCPLR Article 78
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
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

Brown v. Hutton Group

Plaintiffs sued defendants for fraudulent conduct related to an oil and gas limited partnership, alleging prospectus fraud, common law fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court, building on a prior dismissal by Judge Walker, found that the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity under Rule 9(b) and did not comply with previous court orders. Specifically, allegations regarding 'excessive ratios,' 'low and declining production levels,' and 'premium purchase prices' were deemed generalized and conclusory, lacking specific facts to support an inference of fraudulent intent or knowledge by defendants. The court also dismissed secondary liability claims due to the absence of a primary violation. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the claims were dismissed with prejudice, as plaintiffs had multiple opportunities to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudInvestment FraudLimited PartnershipOil and GasRule 9(b) DismissalPleading ParticularityFraudulent MisrepresentationBreach of Fiduciary DutySection 10(b)Securities Exchange Act
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

Nikko Asset Management Co. v. UBS AG, UBS Warburg (Japan), Ltd.

Plaintiffs, Nikko Asset Management Co., Ltd., MMF, and HMMF (collectively 'Nikko'), sued defendants, UBS AG and its subsidiaries ('UBS'), alleging violations of federal securities laws and tort claims. Nikko accused UBS of fraudulently selling credit-linked notes (CLNs) in Japan without disclosing critical information about Enron Corporation's financial instability, knowledge UBS allegedly gained through its U.S. dealings with Enron. The core issue was whether U.S. federal securities laws applied to these predominantly foreign transactions. The court granted UBS's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that the alleged U.S. conduct was merely preparatory and did not directly cause the plaintiffs' losses from the Japanese transactions, thus failing both the 'effects test' and the 'conduct test'.

Securities FraudCredit-Linked NotesSubject Matter JurisdictionForeign TransactionsEnron ScandalConduct TestEffects TestMotion to DismissInvestment BankingInternational Law
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. American Building Maintenance

Pro se plaintiff Augustine Tucker brought an action against his former and current employers, American Building Maintenance Company of New York, Inc. (ABM) and Collins Building Services (CBS), to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration, conducted under a collective bargaining agreement, denied Tucker's grievance regarding a change in his work shift and loss of overtime pay. Tucker alleged the award was arbitrary, fraudulent, and a product of collusion, and that his union attorney provided negligent representation. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Tucker lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and the action was untimely. The court granted the motion, finding Tucker did not provide sufficient facts to support claims of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did he meet the rigorous standards under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate an arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissFederal Arbitration ActPro Se LitigationWorkplace DisputeOvertime PayWork Shift Change
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Avanade, Inc.

Plaintiff Andrew S. Cohen sued his former employer, Avanade Inc., and two employees, Matthew McCafferty and Aziz Virani, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, malicious conduct, harm to professional reputation, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Cohen claimed he was induced into employment by false representations regarding Avanade's application management capabilities, leading to lost sales opportunities and damage to his professional standing. Defendants sought dismissal of the entire complaint. The Court granted the motion, dismissing all claims. It determined the compensation plan was not a binding contract, fraud claims lacked the required specificity, and New York law did not support the malicious conduct or professional reputation claims. Additionally, negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims failed due to the absence of an independent duty or special relationship, and were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Motion to DismissBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Promissory Estoppel
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burlew v. American Mutual Insurance

Bernice Burlew, an employee of Voplex Corporation, filed a lawsuit against her workers' compensation insurance carrier for alleged negligent and bad faith delay in authorizing necessary medical treatment for a work-related injury. Mrs. Burlew claimed her physician advised surgery shortly after a 1979 work-related illness, but the carrier withheld authorization for four to five months, leading to claims of emotional distress and fraudulent conduct. The defendant carrier sought dismissal, arguing the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusivity provision and that no independent tort cause of action was established. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a breach of an insurance contract does not, in itself, create a tort claim, and the alleged conduct did not meet the high standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, the complaint, including the bad faith claim and requests for punitive damages, was dismissed, as the court found plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable cause of action in tort.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Carrier LiabilityBad Faith ClaimIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressExclusivity ProvisionBreach of ContractMedical Treatment AuthorizationPersonal InjuryNegligenceAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Societe Nationale D'Exploitation Industrielle Des Tabacslumettes v. Salomon Bros. International Ltd.

Soeiété Nationale d’Exploitation Industrielle des Tabacs et Allumettes (SEITA), a French corporation, sued Salomon Brothers International Limited (SBIL), Salomon Brothers Inc. (SBI), and Salomon Brothers Holding Company, Inc. (SBHC) for alleged securities and commodities fraud. SEITA claimed that Salomon, through its London-based representative, fraudulently induced it to invest in high-risk derivative "Swap Transactions" by misrepresenting them as low-risk, resulting in a loss of nearly $30 million. Salomon moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the alleged fraudulent acts were predominantly foreign. The court, applying the "conduct test" for extraterritorial jurisdiction, determined that the U.S.-based activities of Salomon's offices were merely preparatory or ancillary and did not directly cause SEITA's losses, as the fraud was consummated by the inducement in London and Paris. Consequently, the court granted Salomon's motion to dismiss the case due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Securities FraudCommodities FraudExtraterritorial JurisdictionConduct TestSubject Matter JurisdictionDerivative SwapsFraudulent InducementMotion to DismissFederal CourtInternational Law
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,579 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