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

Carroll v. Sisters of Saint Francis Health Services, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether a plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on fear of contracting AIDS without proving actual HIV exposure. Plaintiff Bessie Carroll, after pricking her fingers on contaminated needles at St. Joseph Hospital, feared contracting AIDS despite multiple negative HIV tests and sued the hospital. The trial court's summary judgment for the hospital was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which adopted a "reasonableness" standard for such claims. However, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, formally adopting an "actual exposure" requirement, stating that a plaintiff must prove actual exposure to HIV to recover emotional damages for AIDS-phobia. Consequently, because Carroll could not demonstrate actual HIV exposure, her claim was found insufficient as a matter of law, and the case was remanded.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional DistressFear of AIDSHIV ExposureActual Exposure RuleReasonableness StandardSummary JudgmentMedical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceContaminated NeedlesToxic Exposure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guess v. Sharp Manufacturing Co. of America

Mary Guess, an assembly line worker for Sharp Manufacturing, filed a workers' compensation claim after believing she was exposed to HIV from a co-worker's blood in 1998, leading to a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Despite five negative HIV tests and medical testimony indicating an "infinitely small" chance of actual infection, the Chancery Court awarded her 38% permanent partial disability. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that a plaintiff seeking workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury due to perceived HIV exposure must demonstrate actual exposure through a medically recognized channel of transmission. The Court concluded that Guess's fear was based on speculation and lacked proof of actual exposure, thus her injury did not "arise out of" her employment.

Workers' CompensationMental InjuryHIV ExposurePost Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)CausationCompensabilityActual ExposureFear of DiseaseVocational DisabilityMedical Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frieder v. Long Island Railroad

Morton Frieder, diagnosed with mesothelioma, and his wife Rosalind Frieder, sued Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority for asbestos exposure. Mr. Frieder worked as a cashier at a diner within LIRR's Morris Park maintenance facility from 1972-1979, serving LIRR employees who often wore asbestos-laden clothing into the diner. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty of care was owed and no actual exposure was proven. The court denied the motion, finding LIRR controlled the premises and working conditions, thus owing a duty of care to Mr. Frieder. Furthermore, the court determined that sufficient circumstantial evidence, including testimony from former LIRR employees, created a question of fact regarding Mr. Frieder's exposure to asbestos from the dust on LIRR workers' clothes.

Asbestos exposureMesotheliomaLandowner liabilityDuty of careSummary judgmentWorkplace safetyPremises liabilityMorris Park facilityLIRR employeesCircumstantial evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Lillian Brown, an assistant head nurse, sustained a needle stick injury from an angiocath stylet in the crib of an HIV-positive infant, Baby C., at Queens General Hospital in December 1990. She subsequently developed 'AIDS phobia' and sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and two doctors for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought to compel HIV testing and moved for summary judgment, arguing her fear was unreasonable given prior negative tests and lack of definitive exposure. The appellate court modified a lower court order, ruling that while actual exposure (scientifically accepted transmission method and HIV-positive source) is required for 'AIDS phobia' claims, triable issues of fact existed. However, the court limited the plaintiff's recoverable damages for emotional distress to the initial six-month period following exposure, unless she could provide evidence of a positive HIV-antibody test, as her fear would be deemed unreasonable thereafter.

AIDS phobianegligent infliction of emotional distressHIV exposuremedical malpracticesummary judgmentemotional damagesreasonable fearmitigation of damagesHIV-antibody testactual exposure
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Halloran v. City of New York

The petitioner, a police officer, sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York for injuries sustained from toxic substance exposure during World Trade Center rescue and recovery operations. The court evaluated the reasonableness of the petitioner's delay in filing, the City's actual knowledge of the claim, and any potential prejudice to the City. It was determined that the petitioner had a reasonable excuse for the delay, attributed to the gradual manifestation of symptoms, and that the City possessed sufficient actual knowledge due to the widespread awareness of WTC-related health issues. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice to the City's ability to investigate the claim. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the notice of claim was deemed timely filed.

World Trade CenterToxic ExposureLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficerRespiratory Illness9/11Municipal LiabilitySpecial ProceedingInjury Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Celotex Corp. v. Tate

James Tate's heirs sued multiple defendants, including Celotex, in a toxic tort case, alleging his death from mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure due to defendants' failure to warn. After settlements, a jury found George Rowley, Inc. and Celotex liable, awarding actual and punitive damages. Celotex appealed, challenging the admission of expert testimony, sufficiency of evidence regarding exposure to a predecessor's products, successor liability, and the constitutionality of the punitive damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of Celotex's eleven points, including upholding the punitive damages despite arguments of excessive fines and due process violations.

Asbestos ExposureToxic TortProduct LiabilityMesotheliomaPunitive DamagesExpert Witness TestimonySuccessor LiabilityAppellate ReviewDue Process ChallengeExcessive Fines Clause
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2003

Edwards v. City of New York

A sanitation worker, referred to as the petitioner, sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York for injuries sustained due to inadequate protective gear following the September 11, 2001, World Trade Center collapse, leading to asbestos exposure. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the application. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing the City's actual knowledge of the essential facts within 90 days of the incident, evidenced by a December 2001 Department of Sanitation memorandum concerning asbestos exposure for WTC-assigned employees. Furthermore, the court found no prejudice to the City from the delay, noting the implausibility of the Department of Sanitation lacking relevant records and considering similar accepted late notices of claim.

Late Notice of ClaimWorld Trade Center CollapseAsbestos ExposureSanitation Worker InjuryMunicipal LiabilityActual Knowledge DoctrineLack of Protective Equipment9/11 Related InjuryNew York Supreme Court
References
1
Case No. 11-04-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2006

Tomasa Rivera, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raul Rivera, Isaiah Rivera Jolene Rivera Rangel Raul Rivera, Jr. And Erica J. Rivera v. Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc.

Appellants, the Riveras, sued appellees Meister Industries, Inc. and Longhorn Custom Coating, Inc. for gross negligence, alleging that Raul Rivera contracted silicosis and died due to exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust while working as a sandblaster. The jury found in favor of the Riveras, awarding $300,000 in exemplary damages. However, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding no evidence of gross negligence. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded there was no legally sufficient evidence that Meister had an actual, subjective awareness of the extreme risk posed by silica dust exposure, a necessary element for gross negligence under Texas law, despite evidence of OSHA regulations and expert testimony on the hazards of silica.

SilicosisGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilitySilica Dust ExposureJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictOccupational DiseaseSandblastingWorkplace SafetyTexas Appeals CourtCausation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auditore v. City of New York

This case addresses an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the City of New York for injuries sustained from 9/11-related toxic exposure. Petitioner sought to serve the notice more than one year and 90 days after accrual. The court grappled with issues of subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations, and federal preemption by the ATSSSA, which grants exclusive federal jurisdiction for 9/11 toxic exposure claims. While acknowledging the City had actual notice and was not prejudiced, the court felt constrained by the precedent set in Matter of Goffredo v City of New York to deny the application, as it was brought beyond the state's one-year-and-90-day limitations period. The opinion also raised questions about whether a notice of claim is even required for ATSSSA-governed claims.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimsubject matter jurisdictionstatute of limitationsfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawATSSSAWorld Trade CenterNew York courts
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,308 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