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

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.

Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone, mechanics at Con Edison, contracted mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure from turbines sold by Westinghouse Corporation. Their estates and Stallone's wife sued multiple defendants, including Westinghouse, with a jury finding Westinghouse 20% liable. The jury also found Westinghouse demonstrated reckless disregard for safety and assessed punitive damages, but the trial court set these findings aside. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, and the higher court agreed, finding insufficient evidence for reckless disregard based on a gross negligence standard. The court concluded that Westinghouse's general awareness of asbestos risks wasn't enough to prove they knew Maltese or Stallone were at risk at a time they could have warned them.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureProduct liabilityReckless disregardPunitive damagesGross negligence standardJury verdictAppellate reviewCon EdisonWestinghouse Corporation
References
2
Case No. ADJ10060262
Regular
Feb 16, 2018

PATRICIA DRIVER vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, California Department of Corrections, which was initially at risk of being denied by operation of law due to the Appeals Board's delay. However, the Board found that its time to act was tolled, similar to the principle in *Shipley*, because the delay was not due to the parties' fault. Despite this tolling, the Appeals Board ultimately denied the reconsideration for the reasons stated in the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report and opinion. The Board also corrected a clerical error in the WCJ's report regarding the applicable regulation for excluding consultative ratings.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedTolledOperation of LawDue ProcessMisplaced FileStatutory Time LimitsAdministrative Law JudgeConsultative Rating8 Cal. Code of Reg. Section 10167
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. Rosa

In 1985, David Martell, perceived to be at risk for AIDS, received dental treatment at North Shore University Hospital under strict isolation techniques. Martell filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), alleging discrimination based on perceived disability, which DHR upheld. The hospital sought judicial review, and the Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, finding the protocol reasonable based on prevailing medical consensus at the time. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the hospital's actions were supported by sound medical judgment and were not a pretext for discrimination, thereby dismissing the complaint.

AIDS discriminationPerceived disabilityHuman Rights LawInfectious disease protocolDental treatmentMedical judgmentAppellate reviewAdministrative lawDisparate treatmentPretext for discrimination
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1987

Claim of Pearson v. New York City Transit Authority

A New York City Transit Police Officer became ill while on duty and was directed by his supervisor to go home and report to the Transit Authority clinic the following morning. While driving his own vehicle to the clinic, the claimant was involved in an automobile accident, giving rise to a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer appealed, contending that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court disagreed, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule that risks of travel to and from work are not incidents of employment, and affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand DoctrineCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentInjury En Route to ClinicEmployer BenefitMedical Appointment TravelTransit Police OfficerWorkers' Compensation Board AppealOff-Premises Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2016

In re Kailynn I.

This case involved a motion by respondent mother, Ms. L., for summary judgment and dismissal of neglect petitions filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). ACS alleged Ms. L. neglected her children, Kailynn and Zyaya, by failing to seek immediate medical care for Kailynn after a fall and missing pediatrician appointments. The court denied summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues regarding medical neglect. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss under Family Court Act § 1051 (c), concluding that its aid was no longer required. This decision was based on Ms. L.'s active participation in services, completion of parenting classes, absence of ongoing safety concerns, and the determination that the incident was isolated, demonstrating her rehabilitation and that the children were no longer at risk.

Neglect PetitionChild WelfareSummary JudgmentDismissal with PrejudiceFamily Court Act § 1051 (c)Adequate SupervisionMedical NeglectParental RehabilitationAid of the CourtParenting Classes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenwald v. Axelrod (In Re Greenwald)

The Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health sought relief from an automatic stay in a Chapter 11 liquidation case to complete administrative proceedings concerning the debtor's medicaid reimbursement entitlements. The debtor, Sidney Greenwald d/b/a Maple Leaf Nursing Home, opposed the application, arguing the state's interest was pecuniary, not regulatory, thus precluding the 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) exception. The court found that the Commissioner's interest was indeed pecuniary, aiming to recoup approximately $911,500 in medicaid overpayments, and thus the regulatory exception did not apply. However, considering that the debtor's nursing home was sold, no patients were at risk, and the case was a liquidation, the court granted the relief from the stay, allowing the administrative appeals to conclude, with any enforcement subject to the bankruptcy court's review of the developed administrative record.

Automatic StayBankruptcyChapter 11Medicaid ReimbursementGovernmental Regulatory PowerPecuniary InterestAdministrative ProceedingsLiquidation CaseAudit AppealsNew York State Department of Health
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1991

Davis v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.

Plaintiff James M. Davis was injured after falling from scaffolding while employed by Arthur Barber, Jr., a subcontractor to Pizzagalli Construction Company, which was hired by Chemung County. Davis and his wife filed damage actions against the defendants, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability for failure to provide proper protection for workers at risk due to elevation differentials. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but on appeal, the court found that Davis's uncontradicted testimony established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a scaffold board "kicked up" causing his fall. Defendants' mere speculation and the unwitnessed nature of the fall were deemed insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order.

Scaffolding AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This action addresses the protection of individuals exposed to toxic substances, specifically asbestos, who suffer no current physical disability but are at risk of future illness. The court recognizes the right for victims of toxic torts to seek the cost of continuous medical monitoring to allow early disease detection. Employee plaintiffs of Con Edison were exposed to friable asbestos after an explosion and seek medical monitoring, emotional distress, and battery damages. Con Edison moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 bars the claims. The court dismissed claims for emotional distress and battery, finding them compensable under Workers' Compensation or not ripe for common law. However, the court denied dismissal of the medical monitoring and public nuisance claims, ruling they are not compensable under Workers' Compensation Law as they don't involve a present disability, and recognized a common-law cause of action for medical monitoring in New York.

Asbestos ExposureToxic TortMedical MonitoringWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionEmotional Distress ClaimsBattery ClaimsPublic NuisanceSummary Judgment MotionFuture Disease Risk
References
26
Showing 1-9 of 9 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