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

Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v. Brown

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's conclusion that the Mud Pond Waterway does not meet the navigable-in-fact test under common law. The dissent highlights the waterway's physical characteristics, including its shallowness, narrowness, impassable rapids, and dense vegetation, asserting these features render it impractical for common public use as a highway for travel or transport. It emphasizes that despite recent public access opportunities via the Lila Traverse and its potential for recreational canoeing, the waterway lacks the practical utility for general public or commercial purposes. The opinion also notes the historical private ownership and use, contrasting it with the stringent New York common law standard for navigability, which prioritizes commercial utility over recreational use alone. Ultimately, the dissent warns against expanding the navigability-in-fact doctrine, which could destabilize private property ownership by opening remote, privately owned bodies of water based solely on arduous public access.

Waterway NavigabilityCommon LawDissenting OpinionPublic EasementPrivate PropertyRecreational UseCommercial TransportNew York LawMud Pond WaterwayLila Traverse
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Blanchard v. Eagle Nest Tenancy In Common

Claimant's decedent, a superintendent for Eagle Nest Tenancy In Common, died in an unwitnessed one-car motor vehicle accident on the employer's premises. His widow filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, arguing his death was causally related to his employment. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed this finding, prompting an appeal by the employer's insurance carrier. The carrier contested that the accident occurred "in the course of employment," despite testimony suggesting the decedent intended to address maintenance issues after returning home. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding sufficient evidence to support that the accident occurred in the course of employment, especially given the presumption afforded to unwitnessed accidents within the scope of employment under Workers' Compensation Law § 21.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment CausalityMotor Vehicle FatalityOn-Premises AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board AppealScope of EmploymentUnwitnessed Accident PresumptionJudicial ReviewAppellate Division AffirmationInsurance Carrier Appeal
References
6
Case No. 09-23-00203-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2025

Jermaine Thomas v. Iron Horse Terminals, L.L.C.

Jermaine Thomas appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Iron Horse Terminals, L.L.C. (IHT). Thomas, a train conductor, was injured while working for IHT and sought remedies under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging IHT was a common carrier. IHT denied FELA applicability, arguing it was a workers' compensation subscriber and not a common carrier. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that IHT did not meet the criteria of a common carrier under FELA, specifically lacking common ownership with a railroad, contractual relationship for common carrier functions, and remuneration from a common carrier. Consequently, Thomas's FELA claim was not applicable.

FELACommon CarrierSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationInterstate CommerceRail ServiceEmployer LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewLone Star Factors
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, Inc.

Howard Rosenburg was injured in a slip and fall accident on premises owned by Angiuli Buick, Inc., receiving workers' compensation from his employer, Angiuli Dodge, Inc. Both corporations were solely owned and operated by Sam Angiuli and shared the same business address. Rosenburg sued Angiuli Buick, Inc. for personal injuries, but the Supreme Court granted summary judgment, asserting that common ownership shielded the defendant from liability under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that Angiuli Buick, Inc. was a separate legal entity from Angiuli Dodge, Inc. Consequently, Angiuli Buick, Inc. was not immune to tort liability despite the common ownership, and the plaintiffs' personal injury claim was reinstated.

Personal InjurySlip and FallWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCorporate VeilSeparate Legal EntityTort LiabilityAppellate ReviewCommon OwnershipEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.

This decision by District Judge McMahon addresses Sirius's motion for reconsideration and the court's order for Sirius to show cause why summary judgment should not be entered for Flo and Eddie. The court previously denied Sirius's motion for summary judgment and deferred ruling on an interlocutory appeal. Sirius argued against summary judgment for Flo and Eddie based on ownership issues, implied license, waiver and estoppel, and statute of limitations. The court affirmed Flo and Eddie's ownership of common law copyrights for The Turtles' recordings and rejected Sirius's arguments for implied license, waiver, and estoppel, finding insufficient evidence. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court clarified that a three-year period applies to common law copyright infringement claims, allowing recovery for infringements occurring within three years prior to the lawsuit (on or after August 16, 2010). Finally, the court addressed class certification, indicating that a ruling on the merits should be deferred until class certification is decided. It ordered Flo and Eddie to either notify the court of its intent to proceed individually (in which case summary judgment on liability would be entered) or to move for class certification by April 3, 2015, following discovery.

CopyrightCommon Law CopyrightSound RecordingsImplied LicenseWaiverEstoppelStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentClass ActionOwnership
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McFadden v. Lee

The plaintiff, a self-employed painter, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting for the defendants at their home. He filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants did not exercise supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a prerequisite for liability under these specific statutes and common-law negligence when the injury stems from the work method rather than a dangerous premises condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 200Common Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionHomeowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorSupervisory AuthoritySafe Place to Work
References
8
Case No. 11 civ. 913, 11 civ. 4212
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Irving Picard, the SIPA Trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG, along with their affiliates and feeder funds, to recover billions in damages. The Trustee alleged that these defendants aided and abetted Madoff's Ponzi scheme through common law claims such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Trustee lacked standing to pursue claims belonging to BMIS's customers, not BMIS itself. The court agreed, holding that a bankruptcy trustee typically represents the debtor, and Madoff's misconduct, imputed to BMIS, invoked the in pari delicto doctrine, precluding BMIS from suing. The court also rejected the Trustee's arguments for standing based on Bankruptcy Code Section 544(a), New York's contribution statute, and common law bailment or equitable subrogation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss all common law claims was granted due to the Trustee's lack of standing.

Ponzi SchemeSecurities Investor Protection ActBankruptcy TrusteeStanding to SueCommon Law ClaimsAiding and Abetting FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyIn Pari DelictoCreditor ClaimsDebtor's Estate
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2008

DiPasquale v. M.J. Ogiony Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained while installing drywall. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Fisher Homes, LLC, granted Fisher's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and granted M.J. Ogiony Builders, Inc.'s cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Fisher. The appellate court modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion against Fisher, citing an issue of fact regarding whether the injury resulted from a fall from the scaffold or a trip onto it. The court also denied Ogiony's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Fisher, determining Ogiony failed to establish Fisher's control over the work site. The denial of Ogiony's request to dismiss Labor Law claims against it was affirmed due to failure to prove non-ownership of the property. Finally, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Fisher was affirmed, as the relevant Industrial Code regulation was found not to apply to the plaintiff's fall.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationNegligenceErie CountyAppellate DivisionConstruction Site InjuryElevation-Related Risk
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,608 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