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
Nov 18, 2011

Nolley v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp.

Plaintiff James Nolley sued Swiss Re America Holding Corporation for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Nolley alleged discrimination regarding promotion, exclusion from meetings, assignment of lesser work, issuance of a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and termination of employment. The court dismissed the Title VII claims as untimely. For the remaining discrimination claims, the court found Swiss Re provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, citing concerns over Nolley's aggressive demeanor and poor performance. Nolley failed to demonstrate these reasons were pretextual or that discrimination was a motivating factor. The court also granted summary judgment to Swiss Re on Nolley's retaliation claim, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory motive and that intervening events defeated the inference of causation.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawPerformance Improvement PlanAdverse Employment ActionPretext
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04441 [196 AD3d 1141]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Knaszak v. Hamburg Cent. Sch. Dist.

Plaintiff Carly Knaszak sued Hamburg Central School District for negligent supervision after being sexually assaulted by another student on school grounds. The Supreme Court denied the school's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granted summary judgment to the defendant, and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the school lacked sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the offending student's propensity for sexual aggression, despite a troubled disciplinary history that did not include prior physically or sexually aggressive acts.

Negligent SupervisionSchool LiabilitySexual AssaultSummary JudgmentForeseeabilityStudent Disciplinary HistoryAppellate ReviewDuty of CareProximate CauseStudent Safety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1986

People v. Rivera

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of first-degree manslaughter, arguing two trial court errors. The appellate court found that a jury charge on justification, including defense of third persons, should have been given due to the deceased's aggressive conduct towards the defendant and his family. Additionally, the trial court improperly denied the defense access to the deceased's psychiatric records, which revealed a history of mental illness, drug addiction, and violent behavior, crucial for the defense's arguments on initial aggression and retreat safety. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

ManslaughterJustification DefenseSelf-defenseDefense of Third PersonsPsychiatric RecordsBrady MaterialEvidentiary ErrorAppellate ReviewNew TrialCriminal Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suddath v. Parks

Michael Doug Suddath, a farm hand, sued his employer Charles J. Parks for personal injuries sustained when he was butted by a bull on Parks' cattle farm. Suddath alleged negligence, claiming Parks failed to provide a safe workplace, warn of the bull's aggressive nature, and offer proper training. The trial court granted summary judgment to Parks. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that no genuine issues of material fact remained and that Parks had no duty to warn Suddath of an unknown aggressive propensity of the larger bull or of dangers that would be obvious to a reasonably prudent person working with such animals.

Farm AccidentEmployer NegligenceDuty to WarnSummary JudgmentCattle FarmAnimal InjuryWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionTennessee LawPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02058 [203 AD3d 597]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Matter of Kyng F. (Kareem F.)

The Family Court denied the respondent father's motions under Family Court Act §§ 1028 and 1061 to have the subject child released to him or for unsupervised visitation. The court found a sound and substantial basis in the record that the child would face imminent risk of harm if returned to the father's care, citing domestic violence against the nonrespondent mother in the child's presence and the father's aggressive and uncooperative behavior during supervised visits and dealings with the agency. Despite mental health treatment, the father refused anger management referrals and lacked insight. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father continued to act aggressively during supervised visits and did not show good cause for modifying the release order to allow unsupervised visits.

Child ProtectionParental RightsDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectVisitation RightsFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewImminent HarmMental HealthAnger Management
References
4
Case No. ADJ9918511
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

VINCENT SARDELLA vs. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Vincent Sardella's Petition for Reconsideration. This decision upholds the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, which was based on observing the witness's demeanor. No substantial evidence was presented to overturn the WCJ's ruling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Orange County Sanitation DistrictVINCENT SARDELLAadministrative law judgesubstantialitydeny reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ10268110
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

PAUL DUNN vs. UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Paul Dunn's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) and gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination. The Board found no substantial evidence to reject the WCJ's assessment of the witness's demeanor. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Substantiality of EvidenceUnderground ConstructionOld Republic Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett
References
1
Case No. ADJ9577721
Regular

RENE ESQUIVEL vs. MID STATE STEEL ERECTORS, INC., administered by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration in case ADJ9577721. The Board adopted and incorporated the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCAB gave significant weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, as the judge observed witness demeanor. No substantial evidence warranted rejecting the WCJ's credibility findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.administrative law judge reportdenial of reconsiderationsubstantiality of evidencewitness demeanorlegal precedentcase ADJ9577721
References
1
Case No. ADJ9693295, ADJ9797058
Regular
Nov 09, 2017

TONY THANG PHUNG vs. METIS TPS LLC, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, ruling that reconsideration was the proper remedy. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's findings and credibility determinations. The WCJ found the applicant sustained injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). Great weight was given to the WCJ's credibility determinations due to the opportunity to observe witness demeanor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationAOE/COEWCJ credibility determinationfinal orderthreshold issueadequate remedyRymer v. HaglerSafeway Stores
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 103 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