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

Campus Management, Inc. v. Kimball

This premises liability case involves firefighter Bobby A. Kimball, who was injured while battling a fire at the Campus Inn Motel, owned by Campus Management, Inc. (Campus). Kimball alleged the fire resulted from Campus's ordinary negligence. After receiving worker's compensation, Kimball sued Campus and the Jariwalas. A jury found Campus 5% negligent and awarded Kimball damages. Campus appealed, invoking the Fireman's Rule, which generally precludes firefighters from recovering for injuries caused by ordinary negligence in the line of duty. The appellate court agreed with Campus, finding that the exceptions to the Fireman's Rule (known dangerous conditions, active negligence after arrival, or the rescue doctrine) did not apply. The court concluded that Texas law does not hold property owners liable for a firefighter's injuries caused by ordinary negligence that merely started a fire. Consequently, the trial court's judgment against Campus was reversed, and a judgment was rendered that Kimball take nothing.

Premises liabilityFireman's RuleOrdinary negligenceLicensee dutyActive negligenceRescue doctrineTexas common lawAppellate court decisionJudgment reversalNegligence claim
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neal v. Archdioceses of New York

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Crane argues for the reversal of an order that granted summary judgment, dismissing a complaint against the Archdioceses of New York and Pius 12 Residential Services — Chester Campus Program. The core issue revolves around the defendants' alleged negligent supervision, leading to an assault where student William Cook broke Israel O'Neal's jaw. Judge Crane contends that the defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of actual or constructive notice regarding Cook's documented violent tendencies, citing extensive behavioral records. Contrary to the majority's view of an impulsive attack, the dissent details a prolonged altercation between the students, suggesting supervisory staff had ample opportunity to intervene. Therefore, the dissenting judge concludes that the motion for summary judgment should have been denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Negligent SupervisionSummary Judgment MotionDissenting OpinionSchool LiabilityStudent InjuryActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAssault and BatteryProximate CauseEducational Institutions
References
10
Case No. 702991/18
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2026

Cannon v. H&L Contr., LLC

The plaintiff, James Cannon, sued H & L Contracting, LLC for personal injuries sustained in two separate incidents in January 2018 while working on a project to repair the fender system of the Whitestone Bridge. The first incident involved slipping from an excavator step into a hole on a crane mat on a barge. The second incident occurred when the plaintiff allegedly fell while crossing a gap between a concrete pile cap and the shore after disembarking the barge. The Supreme Court denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision regarding the defendant's motion, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint for both incidents. The court found that the defendant's liability for the first incident fell under its role as employer, not vessel owner, under the LHWCA, and for the second incident, the injury occurred on an extension of land, not an appurtenance of the vessel. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation ActVessel NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDual-Capacity DefendantAdmiralty LawMaritime LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
11
Case No. E2008-00511-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2009

John Doe, Joe and Jane Doe v. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Children's Services

This case concerns an appeal by John Doe and his parents against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. John Doe, then a minor, was placed on a "secret, government maintained ‘indicated’ perpetrator list" without being afforded due process, leading to the plaintiffs' legal challenge. The Chancery Court for Knox County dismissed the action, ruling it was not "ripe" because there was no allegation of the department releasing Doe's name from the list, which would trigger a hearing under revised rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. However, the appellate court based its decision on John Doe's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not requesting an available administrative hearing, which he was entitled to under the rules in effect at the time of the incident, prior to initiating a direct appeal.

Due processChild abuseAdministrative lawRipeness doctrineAppellate reviewTennessee lawConstitutional rightsMinor's rightsExhaustion of remediesGovernment list
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sommer v. State of New York

Claimant appealed an order from the Court of Claims which dismissed his claim against the State University of New York at Oneonta. The claim alleged that the claimant was injured after slipping and falling on ice on a sidewalk on the campus. The Court of Claims initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the notice of intention and claim jurisdictionally defective due to an inadequate description of the incident's location. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concurring that the generalized description was insufficient to allow the defendant to investigate its liability. Consequently, the claimant lost the benefit of a two-year extension for filing the claim.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityNotice of IntentionJurisdictional DefectCourt of Claims ActState University of New YorkCampus IncidentIce AccidentSidewalk FallGovernmental Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hightower v. United States

Willie Hightower, a federal employee, sued the United States and three individual federal officers for alleged injuries from a 1999 arrest at a VA hospital campus. Hightower sought money damages under state tort laws via the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims under Bivens, despite having already received benefits under the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) for the same incident, which he certified as work-related. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ruled that FECA provides the exclusive remedy for federal employees' work-related injuries, thereby precluding FTCA claims against the United States. Furthermore, Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity, and against individual federal employees, they are precluded by the comprehensive remedial schemes of FECA and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).

Federal Employee Compensation ActFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionExcessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderLibel
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1986

Cameli v. Pace University

Annunziato Cameli initiated a negligence action against Pace University, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained from a slip and fall incident on the university's campus. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted Pace University's motion to amend its answer, allowing the inclusion of an affirmative defense citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and subsequently granted summary judgment, dismissing Cameli's complaint. The court's decision was based on the finding that Pace University qualified as a special employer of Cameli, who had already received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, National Cleaning Contractors. Upon appeal by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order. The appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the amendment and that a special employment relationship between Cameli and Pace University was established as a matter of law, thus limiting Cameli's remedy exclusively to workers' compensation.

NegligencePersonal InjurySpecial EmploymentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSlip and FallAppellate AffirmationDegree of Control
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,481 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