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. MDL No. 1421
Regular Panel Decision

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Nokia, Inc.

Justice Hecht's dissenting opinion argues against the majority's application of the eight-corners rule in cellphone radiation class actions. He contends that while plaintiffs allege "biological injury," they meticulously avoid claiming actual "bodily injury" damages to facilitate class certification. Hecht asserts that the claimed damages, primarily for headsets, are not "because of bodily injury" and that class members are not required to have used phones or suffered personal injury. He highlights class counsel's explicit disclaimers of individual injury claims, concluding that insurers should not be compelled to defend these claims as they do not actually or potentially involve damages due to bodily injury.

class actioninsurance coverageduty to defendbodily injurybiological injurycellphone radiationpleading standardscausationdamageseight-corners rule
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chelli v. Banle Associates, LLC

This appellate decision from the Supreme Court, Queens County, addresses an action for personal injuries where the defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict. Key issues included whether the plaintiff sustained a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, impacting common-law indemnification, and the excessiveness of damages for future pain and suffering. The court, applying a new interpretation of "permanent total disability" from Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., modified the judgment to grant common-law indemnification against the plaintiff's employer. Additionally, the damages award for future pain and suffering was deemed excessive, leading to a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount.

Personal InjuryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCommon-Law IndemnificationPermanent Total DisabilityFuture Pain and SufferingDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKnight v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff, previously injured in a work-related accident, sustained further personal injuries in a bus accident in 2010 and subsequently sued. A jury awarded her damages, including for past medical expenses, and past and future lost earnings. The defendants sought a collateral source setoff, arguing that the plaintiff's Workers' Compensation and Social Security disability benefits from her prior injury should reduce the award. While the Supreme Court initially denied this motion, the appellate court modified the judgment. The court reduced the awards for past and future lost earnings based on established Workers' Compensation benefits but denied a setoff for Social Security benefits and medical bills due to the defendants' failure to provide sufficient proof. As a result, the judgment was modified to reflect adjusted damages for lost earnings.

Personal InjuryDamagesLost EarningsMedical ExpensesCollateral Source RuleWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationEvidence Standards
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1988

Matthews v. County of Nassau

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which awarded the plaintiff $210,000 in damages for personal injuries. The appellate court reversed this judgment and dismissed the complaint. It was determined that the plaintiff, a volunteer at the Nassau County Fine Arts Museum, was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for her job-related injuries under Nassau County Administrative Code § 2105 (b). The court found that the plaintiff was performing services as a volunteer when she was injured and there was no deviation from employment. Therefore, the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, as the plaintiff failed to present prima facie proof that her injury was not job-related.

Workers' CompensationVolunteerPersonal InjuryNassau CountyAppellate ReversalJob-Related InjuryMotion to DismissPrima Facie ProofAdministrative CodeMuseum
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1963

Graham v. Morris

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment rendered for plaintiffs Dillard C. Morris and Jerry Morris following a collision between Jeff Graham's truck and Morris's tractor-trailer in Garza County, Texas. The jury found the truck driver negligent in multiple respects, proximately causing personal injuries to Jerry Morris and property damage, and found no contributory negligence by Morris. On appeal, defendants raised points concerning refusal of a trial amendment, an emergency defense, wording of jury issues, and improper jury argument, all of which were overruled. However, the appellate court found the jury's awards for Jerry Morris's personal injuries and future medical expenses to be excessive. The court mandated a remittitur of $22,000. Upon Jerry Morris filing the remittitur, the modified judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

CollisionProperty DamagePersonal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceProximate CauseEmergency DoctrineTrial AmendmentJury InstructionsJury Argument
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Giovanniello v. E.W. Howell, Co.

This case involves an appeal by the plaintiffs in a consolidated action seeking damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendants Fratello Construction Corp., Recine Materials Corp., and PMC Rebar, Inc. The appellate court affirmed this decision. The court's analysis focused on liability under Labor Law §§ 240, 241, and 200, as well as common-law negligence. It found that Fratello Construction Corp., a prime contractor, was not liable due to a lack of privity of contract with the injured plaintiffs' employer and no delegated authority to oversee their activities. Similarly, subcontractors Recine Materials Corp. and PMC Rebar, Inc., were found not liable as they did not control the work that caused the injury nor create an unreasonable risk of harm. The appellate court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the granting of summary judgment was premature.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryLabor Law Section 240Labor Law Section 241Labor Law Section 200Common-Law NegligencePrivity of ContractSubcontractor LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorksite Safety
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2006

Sedita v. New York City Transit Authority

The New York City Transit Authority appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment in an action seeking damages for personal injuries and wrongful death. The Transit Authority failed to provide sufficient proof to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, specifically concerning whether the decedent's injury occurred in the course of and arose from employment, which would invoke Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10 and 11 as an exclusive remedy. Due to this failure, the denial of their motion was affirmed. The court also declined the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's request to search the record for summary judgment on the issue of ownership and control, as it was not within the scope of the Transit Authority's appeal.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentPrima Facie CaseAppealMotion PracticeAppellate ReviewMetropolitan Transportation Authority
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7 World Trade Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves an appeal where plaintiffs sought damages from Westinghouse Electric Corp. for negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty after explosions in bus ducts supplied by Westinghouse caused injury to workers and damage to the ducts at 7 World Trade Center. The trial court found Westinghouse 70% liable for negligence and strict liability. However, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, vacated the prior damage award, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that under the economic loss rule established in Bocre Leasing Corp. v General Motors Corp., plaintiffs could not recover for purely economic losses in tort without allegations of bodily injury or damage to other property. The court clarified that personal injury claims by workers did not extend to the plaintiffs' economic losses and that the Bocre rule applies to immediate purchasers.

Product LiabilityEconomic Loss RuleNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantyAppellate ReviewTort LawDamagesBus DuctsWorld Trade Center
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 20,553 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