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. 13-cv-4732 (NRB)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2014

FirstBank Puerto Rico v. Barclays Capital Inc. (In re Lehman Bros.)

This appeal arises from the insolvency proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. FirstBank Puerto Rico challenged the sale of bonds it had posted as collateral to a Lehman entity for derivative transactions, which were subsequently sold to Barclays Capital Inc. The District Court affirmed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's judgment, which granted summary judgment to Barclays. The court held that FirstBank lost its property interest in the bonds when Lehman Swaps rehypothecated them to Lehman Brokerage, and therefore, FirstBank had no right to reclaim them from Barclays, who purchased them in a bankruptcy sale. The court also affirmed the sanctions against FirstBank for violating the Bankruptcy Court’s anti-suit injunction.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsInsolvencyDerivative TransactionsCollateralRehypothecationRepo AgreementsAsset SaleAnti-Suit InjunctionSummary JudgmentContempt Order
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc.

District 2, a marine engineers union, sued Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc. (PRMMI) to compel arbitration after PRMMI terminated their collective bargaining agreement and discharged union members. PRMMI argued the agreement was terminable at will, while District 2 maintained it was still in effect, terminable only by the union. The court found both interpretations unpersuasive, ruling the agreement's extension implied a reasonable period for good faith negotiations and required reasonable notice for termination. Therefore, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment and PRMMI's motion to dismiss, ordering a factual hearing to determine the effectiveness of the termination, while making accrued benefit claims immediately arbitrable.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionUnionEmployerGood Faith NegotiationsReasonable Notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathews v. PUERTO RICO MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph L. Mathews filed a complaint against Puerto Rico Maritime Management, Inc., alleging breach of contract and age discrimination after being denied employment as a "relief bo'sun." The federal age discrimination claim was dismissed as Mathews was over 70, falling outside the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's coverage. Mathews attempted to amend his complaint to satisfy diversity jurisdiction's monetary requirements, but the court ruled that jurisdiction must exist at the time of the initial filing. Although pendent jurisdiction over state law claims existed, the court declined to exercise it due to minimal discovery, complex state law issues, and no significant prejudice to the plaintiff regarding the statute of limitations. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing Mathews to file a new action in either state or federal court.

Age DiscriminationBreach of ContractFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionAmended ComplaintStatute of LimitationsEmployment LawMaritime EmploymentDismissal Without Prejudice
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruiz v. Lavine

Petitioners Pedro and Flora Ruiz initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of medical assistance by the Monroe County Department of Social Services, a decision affirmed by Commissioner Abe Lavine. The Ruiz couple, having moved from Puerto Rico to Rochester due to Mrs. Ruiz's critical kidney illness requiring immediate hemodialysis, were denied aid on the premise of non-residency and having moved solely for medical treatment. The court, led by Goldman, J., annulled this determination, concluding that the prior fair hearing inappropriately focused on the petitioners' motivation for relocation rather than their genuine intent to establish New York residency. Emphasizing that health-related moves are valid for domicile and that continued property ownership in their prior residence does not negate new domicile, the court remitted the case for a new hearing to properly assess the Ruiz's residential intent.

DomicileResidency RequirementMedical AssistanceSocial Services LawArticle 78Intent to ResideHealth ReasonsConstitutional Right to TravelFair HearingRemand
References
12
Case No. 07-02-0011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

Cresthaven Nursing Residence v. Freeman

This case involves an appeal in a health care liability claim where the appellees, daughters of Wanda Granger, sued Cresthaven Nursing Residence, Cantex Healthcare Centers, and its general partners for negligence that allegedly resulted in Granger's injury and death. A jury awarded $9 million, which was subject to a statutory damage cap. The appellate court initially found prejudgment interest was not subject to the cap and suggested remittiturs for excessive damages. However, on rehearing, the court modified its decision, aligning with a new Supreme Court ruling that prejudgment interest is included in the damage cap, and affirmed the judgment with an adjusted cap of $1,413,008.13. Key issues included the application of the damage cap, prejudgment interest calculation, spoliation instruction, and expert witness qualification.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival ActionDamage CapPrejudgment InterestSpoliation of EvidenceExpert Witness QualificationExcessive Damages
References
39
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed its determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The central legal question involved whether a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for "indecent assault and battery" was "substantially similar" to a reportable Texas sex offense. DPS contended the trial court erred by excluding a police report detailing the victim's allegations and in its "substantial similarity" finding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts statute were not substantially similar to those of Texas sexual assault, indecency with a child, or related attempted offenses. Therefore, the anonymous resident was not required to register as a sex offender in Texas under SORA, rendering the evidentiary exclusion issue moot.

Sex Offender RegistrationSORASubstantial Similarity TestMassachusetts LawTexas LawCriminal ProcedureSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Altamont Farms, Inc.

The plaintiffs, migrant farm workers, sought to enforce a Puerto Rican default judgment against Altamont Farms, Inc., a New York apple grower. Altamont contended that the Puerto Rican court lacked personal jurisdiction. Justice Lawrence E. Kahn, presiding in New York, determined that Altamont's voluntary filing of a job offer through the Federal Interstate Clearance System, which was transmitted to Puerto Rico for labor recruitment, established sufficient minimum contacts. The court ruled that Altamont's actions satisfied Puerto Rico's long-arm statute and met due process standards, thereby subjecting it to Puerto Rican jurisdiction. Consequently, the New York court granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the judgment under full faith and credit principles and also ordered the consolidation of related cases.

Personal JurisdictionFull Faith and CreditLong-Arm StatuteMinimum ContactsDue ProcessWagner-Peyser ActMigrant Farm WorkersDefault Judgment EnforcementInterstate Clearance SystemJudicial Consolidation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2004

In re Rico D.

The mother appealed an order of disposition from the Family Court, Kings County, dated July 12, 2004. The order determined that she neglected Saka E-L. and derivatively neglected Rico D. and Dior F. The appeals court affirmed the order, finding that the child’s out-of-court statements, corroborated by a social worker’s observations and the child’s school and medical records, were sufficient to establish neglect. The court also upheld the finding of derivative neglect, citing the mother’s lack of understanding of her parental responsibility.

Child neglectDerivative neglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of child's statementsCredibility determinationParental responsibilityAppellate reviewOrder of dispositionKings County Family CourtOut-of-court statements
References
8
Case No. M2011-00911-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2011

Orlando Residence, LTD. v. Nashville Lodging Company, Nashville Residence Corp., and Kenneth E. Nelson

This appeal concerns the effective date of a judgment against Kenneth E. Nelson, which dictates whether the judgment has expired. The Appellant argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and law of the case should prevent the Plaintiff from asserting that the judgment was entered in 2004. The trial court determined that the judgment had not expired, holding its effective date to be October 7, 2004, following a remand that resolved a statute of limitations issue and vacated the original 2000 judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the issues justiciable and within the chancery court's jurisdiction, and rejected the arguments based on the law-of-the-case doctrine and equitable estoppel.

Judgment ExpirationStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelLaw of the CaseFraudulent ConveyancePost-Judgment InterestSubject Matter JurisdictionDirect AppealAppellate ReviewDavidson County Chancery Court
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerardo Rico v. Judson Lofts, Ltd.

Gerardo Rico appealed a summary judgment in favor of Judson Lofts, Ltd. in his common law negligence suit, seeking recovery for workplace injuries. The central issue was whether Judson Lofts, Ltd. was protected by the Texas Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision, specifically debating if Judson Lofts, Ltd. was covered by a workers' compensation policy issued to 'Judson Lofts, LLC' by Nationwide Staff Leasing. The appellate court affirmed that Judson Lofts, Ltd. and Judson Lofts, LLC were the same entity. However, the court found the Service Agreement between Judson and Nationwide ambiguous regarding the sharing of employment responsibilities, such as direction, control, hiring, and firing, as mandated by the Staff Leasing Services Act. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings because Judson failed to conclusively establish its affirmative defense.

NegligenceWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCo-employer LiabilityContract AmbiguityTypographical ErrorAppellate Review
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 902 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