News & Case Summaries

Case Summaries

Legal Malpractice

[05/04] Minkin v. Gibbons, P.C.
In a suit alleging that a law firm committed legal malpractice in prosecuting a patent application, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the law firm is affirmed, where the plaintiff did not carry its burden on causation, since: 1) the plaintiff failed to raise any material fact in dispute as to the nonobviousness of the proposed alternate claims, and failed to provide evidence demonstrating that its alternate claims were nonobvious; and 2) no inference could be drawn that an examiner would have allowed alternate claims of greater scope just because a more narrow patent was issued after an in-person interview.

[04/23] Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP
In a state-law fraud suit stemming from alleged acts of malpractice committed by a lawyer and his firm in connection with a patent application: 1) the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants is reversed, where a) patent jurisdiction under 28 USC section 1338 was proper because the underlying question was whether the plaintiff would have been able to achieve patent protection for its invention absent the alleged malpractice, and b) the district court erred in not tolling California's three-year statute of limitations for fraud claims during the time the case was pending in the state courts; and 2) the district court's damages order is vacated, where the record did not support the district court's manner of summarily limiting damages.

[04/17] USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp.
In a suit for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud arising out of a licensee's and law firm's alleged failure to secure a patent on the licensed product, the district court's order dismissing the complaint is affirmed, where it was not brought within the four-year limitations period, and neither the discovery rule nor the fraudulent concealment doctrine served to toll the limitations period.

[02/28] In re Coudert Bros. LLP
In a law firm's bankruptcy proceedings in federal district court in New York, in which a corporation filed a claim based on a pending legal malpractice action against the firm in Connecticut: 1) the portion of the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order disallowing the claim for failure to comply with a statute of limitations under New York choice-of-law rules is vacated; and 2) the portion of the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of the corporation’s motion for reconsideration is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to remand in part to the bankruptcy court with instructions to apply Connecticut’s choice-of-law rules in deciding the corporation's motion to reconsider.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[05/15] Harman Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, DOL
In a case in which an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that a man suffered disabling obstructive lung disease arising out of his work as a coal miner and awarded his widow black lung benefits payable by his former employer, a petition for review is denied, where the award of benefits found support in the record and accorded with the Administrative Procedure Act, as the ALJ properly evaluated the appropriate weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.

[05/15] DMS Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (Zurich Services Corp.)
In a suit by a provider of commercial janitorial services against the third-party administrator for its workers' compensation insurance claims, a petition for writ of mandate seeking to vacate the trial court's order compelling arbitration is granted, where: 1) none of the plaintiffs' agreements with their administrator contained an arbitration clause; and 2) the trial court erred in compelling arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because the plaintiffs' claims against the administrator were not founded in, or inextricably intertwined with, the deductible agreement with the insurer, which contained the arbitration clause.

[05/03] Bready v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
By memorandum, it is held that the Appellate Division properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in each of two consolidated cases, where the defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not breach the duty of care applicable under the Federal Employer's Liability Act.

[05/01] Matter of Zamora
A claim for workers' compensation benefits is denied, where: 1) the Workers' Compensation Board need not infer, from the finding that a claimant withdrew from his or her employment due to an accident at the work place, that his or her post-accident loss of wages is attributable to physical limitations caused by the accident; and 2) there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant had not made a reasonable search for work consistent with her physical restrictions.

Read More