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
Jun 28, 1993

Gagliardi v. Trapp

The plaintiff, a correction officer, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in her action for assault and negligence. She alleged physical and mental harm after being punched by a fellow correction officer, Darrell Harris, and claimed her employers, New York City Department of Correction and the City of New York, attempted to conceal the incident and discriminated against her. The Supreme Court correctly determined that her negligence claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law as she had already received benefits, and her allegations did not meet the high standard for an intentional tort to circumvent the exclusivity provision. Furthermore, her discrimination claims under Executive Law § 296 were found to be conclusory and unsupported.

AssaultNegligenceWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscriminationExclusive RemedyAppellate DecisionCorrection OfficerRikers IslandEmployers' Liability
References
11
Case No. 01-23-00383-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2024

Delirium TV LLC v. Tran Dang

Delirium TV, LLC appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Tran Dang. Tran Dang, a participant in the reality TV show "Love Is Blind," alleged sexual assault by a fellow participant and subsequently sued Delirium TV, LLC for civil assault, false imprisonment, and negligence. Delirium sought to enforce an arbitration agreement, but Dang argued her claims were exempt under the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Dang's allegations constituted a "sexual assault dispute" under the EFAA, rendering the predispute arbitration agreement invalid for these claims. The Court also rejected arguments that Dang waived her right to contest arbitration by pursuing separate wage claims in arbitration and affirmed the denial of Delirium's motion to stay the litigation.

Sexual AssaultArbitration AgreementEFAAEnding Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment ActMotion to Compel ArbitrationInterlocutory AppealVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorTexas Court of AppealsLove Is Blind
References
42
Case No. Court file #3
Regular Panel Decision

McBride v. Tennessee Valley Authority

This case involves a husband and wife suing the Tennessee Valley Authority (T.V.A.) and several individual defendants for damages related to an alleged assault on the husband, McBride, during his employment as a foreman, and for his alleged wrongful termination. McBride was assaulted by a fellow employee, Hamrick, and subsequently terminated by the T.V.A., despite his contention of blamelessness. He exhausted internal grievance procedures and received full benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act for his injuries. The Court dismissed the lawsuit against the individual defendants for lack of jurisdiction and granted summary judgment in favor of the T.V.A., finding that McBride's exclusive remedy for the assault was under the FECA and that his wrongful termination claim lacked merit as procedural rights were observed.

Employment lawWorkplace injuryAssault and batteryGovernment employmentFederal courtSummary judgment dismissalExclusive remedy doctrineGrievance proceduresFederal Employees Compensation ActManagerial liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns v. City of Utica

Plaintiff Julianne Bums, a firefighter, filed a lawsuit against co-worker Michael Knapp and Municipal Defendants (City of Utica, Armond Festine, Linda Fatata) alleging sexual assault, gender discrimination, retaliation, and conspiracy. Her claims stemmed from an alleged sexual assault by Knapp, the subsequent internal investigation, and denial of her disability benefits. The Court dismissed Bums' state-law discrimination claim due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims against all defendants, and Section 1983 and 1985 claims, were dismissed. Plaintiff's assault and battery claim was also dismissed as time-barred, and her husband's derivative loss of consortium claim was consequently dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMunicipal LiabilityIndividual LiabilityCivil Rights ActSection 1983Section 1985 ConspiracyState Law Claims
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howe v. Yellowbook

Rachael Howe, an employee of Yellowbook, alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against her employer, Yellowbook, Inc., and a supervisor, Max Andrews, following an alleged sexual assault by Andrews. Howe claimed she was constructively discharged after reporting the incident. She filed suit under Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alongside state tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent supervision and retention, and assault and battery. The court ruled on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, dismissing several of Howe's state law claims against both defendants due to preemption or lack of evidence, but allowing her Title VII claims against Yellowbook and her IIED and assault and battery claims against Andrews to proceed to trial.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIITCHRAIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionAssault and Battery
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

Ackerman v. National Financial Systems

The plaintiff, Diana Benincasa, initiated an action against her former employer, National Financial Systems, Inc. (NFS), Robert Barbarello, and Robert Hernandez, alleging sexual harassment under the New York Human Rights Law and common law assault and battery. The case, originally filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, was removed to federal court. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, but Benincasa consented to the dismissal of assault and battery claims against Barbarello and NFS. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, denied the defendants' remaining summary judgment contentions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Barbarello's alleged sexual harassment, NFS's vicarious liability for Hernandez's conduct, and Benincasa's alleged failure to mitigate damages. Consequently, the case was set for trial.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentSummary judgmentAssault and batteryVicarious liabilityMitigation of damagesNew York Human Rights LawTitle VIIFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBankruptcy trustee
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paylay Hats, Inc. v. Zaritsky

Plaintiff corporation, a hat and millinery manufacturer operating an open shop, brought an action to restrain two local labor unions from picketing its premises and committing acts harmful to its business. The plaintiff alleged the defendant unions conspired to injure its business and compel unionization through unlawful acts like mass picketing, abuse, intimidation, and assault. Defendants denied conspiracy and wrongful acts, claiming peaceful picketing. While some evidence suggested mass picketing and assaults, the court found insufficient proof of a conspiracy or authorization by the unions for the alleged unlawful acts. The defendants also claimed the plaintiff had "unclean hands" by hiring "gangsters" to prevent unionization, which the court condemned but found not to justify the defendants' alleged interference. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a course of conduct by the defendants aimed at destroying or crippling its business. The complaint was dismissed.

Labor disputePicketingInjunctionUnionizationUnfair labor practicesMass picketingAssaultConspiracyOpen shopUnclean hands doctrine
References
0
Case No. 2022-08-1069
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2025

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Workplace InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator CuffMedical CausationExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityEmployee Burden of ProofInterlocutory AppealRemandSubsequent Injury Fund
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prave v. State

The State of New York appealed 17 separate orders from the Court of Claims that denied its motion for summary judgment in actions alleging intentional assault stemming from the Attica uprising. The State contended that the claimants' acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred their intentional tort claims, constituting an election of remedies. Claimants argued they never applied for benefits and should not be bound by such an election. The Appellate Division held that accepting benefits, even if initiated by the employer, generally precludes a subsequent tort action if the Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable. To pursue their tort claims, claimants must first seek to rescind the Board's prior determination that their injuries were accidental. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court's orders, granted summary judgment to the State, and dismissed the claims without prejudice for claimants to seek a redetermination from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Attica UprisingWorkers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral AttackWorkers' Compensation BoardRescission of AwardElection of RemediesCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvamoser v. Pratt Institute

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Pratt Institute and 205 Ashland Associates, for personal injuries resulting from a criminal assault. The plaintiff was robbed on a public street near her residence, owned by 205 Ashland Associates and leased by Pratt Institute, then forced into her apartment and to a bank. She alleged negligence by the defendants for a defective or open front door, contending they failed to provide adequate security. The Supreme Court found the defendants' actions were not a substantial cause of the injury, as the criminal act originated off-premises and the plaintiff would have been compelled into her apartment regardless of the door's security. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the causal connection between any negligence and the criminal act was too attenuated as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryCriminal AssaultNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCausationProximate CauseLandlord LiabilityAppellate ReviewSecurity Measures
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,672 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