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. 2017-03-0889
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2018

Cooper, Erik v. Tragedy Girls Pictures, LLC

This case concerns Erik Cooper's request for expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits against Tragedy Girls Pictures, LLC. The primary legal issues addressed were subject matter jurisdiction in Tennessee and the application of the election of remedies doctrine. The Court found that Tennessee likely had jurisdiction because the contract for hire was accepted by Mr. Cooper in Tennessee. However, the claim was ultimately denied because Mr. Cooper had affirmatively pursued and accepted benefits under California workers' compensation law, thereby precluding recovery under Tennessee law through the election of remedies doctrine.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionElection of RemediesContract for HireCalifornia Workers' CompTennessee LawExpedited HearingQMEMedical ImpairmentInterstate Employment
References
7
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. 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

Duke v. State of Texas

This case involves two non-students, Elizabeth Anna Duke and David William Hay-Ion, who filed a federal suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the State of Texas and its instrumentalities. The plaintiffs challenged a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction issued by a state court that prohibited them from entering the North Texas State University campus after they spoke at a protest rally. The federal District Court declared the state court's temporary restraining order and Mrs. Duke's contempt conviction constitutionally invalid. It also found the university's outside speaker policies and Campus Security Regulation 3g to be unconstitutional due to vagueness and overbreadth, violating First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Furthermore, the court declared that Article 466a of the Texas Penal Code was unlawfully and unconstitutionally applied to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the court enjoined the State of Texas from enforcing the permanent injunction.

First AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssemblyStudent RightsUniversity RegulationsInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefPrior RestraintVagueness Doctrine
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godinez v. Siena College

Plaintiff, an alumnus of Siena College, initiated a lawsuit against Siena College and Shirley Staley, a nurse employed at the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC). The action stemmed from Staley's report to a crisis team about potential violent behavior by the plaintiff at his graduation ceremony, information allegedly based on statements from the plaintiff's mother. Following this, Siena College declared the plaintiff 'persona non grata' and barred him from campus. The plaintiff alleged that Staley negligently disclosed inaccurate confidential information and that Siena College negligently barred him from campus without due process. The Supreme Court granted Siena College's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, and subsequently dismissed the complaint against Staley at the close of the plaintiff's case. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, ruling that Siena College had the authority to ban the plaintiff as an alumnus and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against Staley because the alleged confidential information was deemed manufactured and thus lacked confidentiality.

Student conductPersona non grataConfidentiality breachMental health informationSummary judgmentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewEducation lawExecutive lawCivil rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2002

Chizh v. Hillside Campus Meadows Associates

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Genesee County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff was injured while performing work described as removing, repairing, and reinstalling a single window screen. The majority opinion affirmed the lower court's decision, categorizing the plaintiff's activity as "routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context," thereby excluding it from the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1). In contrast, the dissenting judges argued that the work should be considered "altering or repairing" a structure, emphasizing the plaintiff's role as a construction worker performing an enumerated activity at height and part of an overall construction contract. The dissent also distinguished the current case from others involving routine maintenance, asserting that the immediate repair of a broken, inoperable screen warrants statutory protection. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceAltering or RepairingWindow Screen RepairConstruction AccidentLadder FallAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationDissenting Opinion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nalepa v. South Hill Business Campus, LLC

Plaintiff, a pipe fitter, was injured when a 10-foot wooden A-frame ladder he was using slipped. He was working in a building owned by the defendant and found the ladder leaning against a bathroom wall. After climbing approximately five feet, the ladder slipped, causing him to fall. Plaintiff commenced an action asserting common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding that plaintiff's misuse of the otherwise adequate safety device was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he used the A-frame ladder in a closed position leaning against a wall, contrary to its design and his safety training.

Ladder accidentFall from heightPremises liabilityConstruction accidentLabor LawStatutory dutyProximate causeSummary judgmentContributory negligenceMisuse of equipment
References
12
Case No. ADJ4388816 ADJ4391500
Regular
Sep 24, 2013

VERA ORTIZ vs. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER, MERCEDDOMINICAN CAMPUS

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Amaral, seeking reconsideration of a decision regarding his medical lien for services rendered to applicant Vera Ortiz for an injury in 1998. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the Labor Code §4604.5 visit limitation does not apply to pre-2004 injuries. The Board affirmed the decision that Dr. Amaral did not meet his burden of proof regarding the full lien amount but deferred the issue of penalties and interest to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMercy Medical CenterMerced Dominican CampusDavid Amaral D.C.Findings of Fact and AwardLabor Code section 4604.5Kunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringStipulated Awardmedical lienprimary treating physician
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 35 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