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

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. NO. 2-02-418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Gina Lively and Robert Lively v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. D/B/A Huguley Memorial Medical Center

This is a premises liability case arising from an alleged carjacking, abduction, and sexual assault of Gina Lively on the Hospital's premises. Gina and Robert Lively sued Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a Huguley Memorial Medical Center, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the Hospital. The Appellants appealed the directed verdict on premises liability, and the denial of their motion to reopen, for mistrial, and for a new trial and sanctions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence of cause-in-fact for negligence and no recognized cause of action for breach of implied warranty.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceDirected VerdictForeseeabilityCause-in-FactImplied WarrantyAbductionSexual AssaultEmployee SafetyInadequate Security
References
41
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04763
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2023

Lin v. Banko

This case involves an appeal in a divorce action concerning maintenance and equitable distribution. The defendant, William Banko, appealed a judgment of divorce from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which awarded the plaintiff, Yvette Lin, maintenance and a distributive award. The appeal focused on the interpretation of a prenuptial agreement regarding the termination date of the marriage for distributive award calculations and the application of cost of living adjustments to maintenance. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the marriage terminated upon the commencement of the action and that annual cost of living adjustments were intended for the maintenance obligation, replacing a defunct index with a functionally identical one.

DivorceMaintenanceEquitable DistributionPrenuptial AgreementCost of Living AdjustmentAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialMarital PropertyContract InterpretationCPI Index
References
7
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 3-93-571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1994

Advanced Living Technologies, Inc., D/B/A Manor Oaks Nursing Home v. Irene Tindle

Irene Tindle filed suit against Advanced Living Technologies, Inc. (ALT), operating as Manor Oaks Nursing Home, for damages resulting from a workplace injury where she slipped on spilled water. The trial court awarded Tindle damages and prejudgment interest. ALT appealed, raising multiple points of error concerning procedural rulings, evidence sufficiency, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas, modified the judgment to adjust the prejudgment interest accrual period to 180 days after March 20, 1989, the date ALT received notice of the claim, and affirmed the judgment as modified. The court largely upheld the trial court's findings regarding ALT's knowledge of the dangerous condition and the admissibility of witness testimony.

Workplace InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityPrejudgment InterestAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidence SufficiencyWitness TestimonyDiscovery Abuse
References
26
Case No. 03-05-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

in Re Senior Living Properties, L.L.C.

Relator Senior Living Properties, L.L.C. petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the trial court's refusal to abate a lawsuit brought by former employee Betty Robinett. Robinett sued Senior Living for negligence and breach of contract after being denied benefits from an Employee Injury Benefit Plan following a job injury. Senior Living contended that Robinett was bound by an arbitration agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that Robinett's claims, including those sounding in tort, were encompassed by the arbitration agreement in the Employee Protection Plan, thereby compelling her to undergo mediation and binding arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment InjuryMandamus PetitionContract BreachNegligence ClaimEmployee Benefits PlanTexas Appellate CourtDispute ResolutionWorkers' Compensation AlternativeWaiver of Rights
References
19
Case No. 04-15-00021-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio v. Michael and Theresa Hayes

The County Court reversed the Board of Adjustment's action regarding Appeal No. A-14-049. This reversal means that the City of San Antonio Permit No. 1951114 to construct a guardrail remains revoked. Additionally, the Board of Adjustment's action from January 13, 2014, in Case Number A-13-0732 remains final. The court also denied the Board of Adjustment's plea to the jurisdiction and their objection to the evidence.

Zoning DisputeAdministrative AppealBuilding PermitsLocal GovernmentProperty RightsJudicial ReviewTexas LawGuardrail RegulationCode EnforcementSan Antonio
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,385 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