Case Summaries

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

[12/05] Levan v. Independence Mall Inc.
In an action arising from an injury in a work-related accident wherein a petition for additional compensation was filed with the Industrial Accident Board more than 5 years after the employer's insurance carrier mailed the last medical expense payment, judgment that the petition was time-barred under 19 Del. C. section 2361(b) is affirmed over claims that: 1) the limitations period began to run when the claimant or his medical provider actually receives the last payment; and 2) the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence; and 3) the Superior Court applied its own construction of section 2361(b) incorrectly and erred when it upheld the Board's ultimate ruling of the petition as barred.

[11/21] Asbestos Workers Local Union No. 42 Welfare Fund v. Brewster
In a subrogation action brought by an ERISA Fund wherein one of its members sought to have her medical expenses from an automobile accident paid by the Fund, summary judgment for plan administrators is affirmed whereby: 1) the Fund's state law subrogation claim was preempted by ERISA section 514, as the claim "relates to" the ERISA plan; and 2) the Fund's subrogation claim duplicated or supplemented a civil enforcement remedy available to the Fund under section 502(a)(3) of ERISA.

More...

Consumer Products

[04/25] Parish Oil Co., Inc. v. Dillon Cos., Inc.
Under a now-amended Colorado unfair competition statute, a grocery store may sell gasoline below cost if such sales are conditioned on the purchase of enough groceries above cost that the entire series of transactions comes in at a profit. Consequently, a judgment in favor of competitors challenging such a practice is reversed.

[04/21] Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.
In a class action alleging deceptive marketing of a food product for toddlers, dismissal of the suit is reversed where: 1) deficiencies in appellants' opening brief do not warrant dismissal since the claim has merit; 2) appellants have stated a claim and could plausibly prove that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the product's packaging; and 3) the district court erred in concluding, without considering any evidence beyond the packaging itself, that appellants' complaint failed to state a viable claim.

[04/21] Chavez v. Netflix, Inc.
In an action against Netflix alleging that its advertised practices of sending customers "unlimited" DVD rentals with "1 Day Delivery" for a flat monthly rate were false wherein Netflix agreed to settle the class action before the class was certified, approval of the settlement and award of attorney fees are affirmed over claims that the trial court abused its discretion in: 1) denying a motion for leave to intervene, 2) approving a settlement agreement which failed to promote the purpose of class litigation; 3) affording a deficient notice to class members; and 4) determining the amount of fees awarded to class counsel.

[04/21] DIRECTV, Inc. v. Rawlins
In a suit by a satellite television provider against a purchaser of illegal decryption devices, denial of statutory damages under the Wiretap Act is vacated and remanded where: 1) a district court's discretion to award or not award damages under the Wiretap Act is not restricted to those cases involving de minimis violations; and 2) the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the appropriate factors for a violation of the Wiretap Act.

[04/15] Platt Elec. Supply, Inc. v. EOFF Elec., Inc.
In an action alleging defendant, a non-profit consumer safety group, negligently misrepresented and fraudulently concealed that defective in-wall heaters were safe, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where the district court properly dismissed negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims as barred by the statutes of limitations, and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claims without leave to amend.

More...