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

Walsh v. 175 Water Street Partners

The executrix of a construction worker, who died in a job-related accident, initiated a death action seeking damages. Special Term granted summary judgment against the subcontractor and employer, and the case proceeded to an assessment of damages. A jury awarded $953,000, which the plaintiff deemed inadequate, prompting a motion to set aside the verdict. The assessment court conditionally granted this motion, requiring defendants to increase the award to $1,250,000. However, the appellate court concluded that the jury's initial damages evaluation was reasonable, reversing the assessment court's order and reinstating the original jury verdict.

Death ActionConstruction AccidentJob-Related InjurySummary JudgmentDamages AssessmentJury VerdictInadequate AwardAppellate ReviewIndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laine v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

This case addresses whether an umbrella insurance policy covers punitive damages assessed against an uninsured motorist, when the umbrella policy's coverage scope is defined by the underlying uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. Sandra Gervais Laine sued Farmers Insurance Exchange after her mother was killed by an uninsured drunk driver. Farmers paid the policy limit under the primary UM policy but denied payment under the umbrella policy for exemplary damages awarded against the drunk driver. The trial court granted Farmers' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that UM coverage does not include exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed, citing Texas public policy against insurance recovery for punitive damages assessed against an uninsured motorist, stating that such damages are intended to punish the wrongdoer, not the insurer. The court also rejected Laine's estoppel and constitutional claims.

Uninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageUmbrella InsuranceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesPublic PolicyInsurance Policy InterpretationWrongful Death ClaimJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Insurance Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP v. Frankel

This case involves petitioners challenging a ruling that their backup power equipment is assessable as real property and contesting tax assessments on that equipment. The petitioners argued that the equipment should not be considered real property under Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12) (f) because it falls under an exception for movable machinery or equipment. They also contended that the equipment should be exempt as telecommunications equipment and that assessments were void due to lack of timely notice. The court modified the lower court's decision, declaring that the backup power equipment is assessable as real property and that the assessments are not nullities for lack of notice.

real propertytax assessmentbackup power equipmentpower generating apparatusmovable machinerytelecommunications equipmentRPTLstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1999

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The plaintiffs, two limousine companies and their owner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which dismissed their causes of action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and several employees. The plaintiffs had alleged retaliatory tax assessments and sought damages under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, and 18 USC § 1962 (RICO). The Supreme Court's dismissal of the claims was affirmed on appeal, holding that the Department of Taxation was not a 'person' under federal statutes and not an 'enterprise' under RICO, and that the individual defendants had minimal involvement or lacked requisite fraudulent intent for RICO claims.

civil rightsRICOracketeeringtaxationretaliationdismissalappellate courtsovereign immunitystatutory interpretationenterprise liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioners, consisting of group self-insured trusts (GSITs), initiated a proceeding to challenge assessments levied by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board under Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (5) (former [f]). They argued that the statute was inapplicable to GSITs and that the Board failed to meet statutory prerequisites for the assessments. The Supreme Court annulled the assessments on the grounds that the Board failed to satisfy prerequisites, although it deemed the statute applicable to GSITs. Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court’s finding that the statute was applicable. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, determining that petitioners were not aggrieved by the judgment as they had received the relief sought—the annulment of the assessments. The court also clarified that collateral estoppel would not apply to the interpretation of the statute, which is a pure question of law, and that the discovery issue was academic.

Group Self-Insured TrustsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationAssessmentsAnnulmentAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Declaratory Judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twin City Fire Insurance Co. v. Davis

Faith Davis, an employee, suffered a back injury and filed a workers' compensation claim with Twin City Fire Insurance Company. They settled, agreeing to pay future medical expenses. Davis subsequently claimed for a prescribed hot tub, which Twin City denied after conducting an investigation. Davis filed suit, alleging bad faith and other violations. The jury found bad faith and awarded actual damages for the withheld medical expense but declined to award mental anguish damages, while also assessing punitive damages. The trial court initially denied punitive damages, but the court of appeals reinstated them. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the punitive damages award, holding that an independent injury, separate from the workers' compensation benefits, is required to recover punitive damages, which Davis failed to establish. The Court affirmed the judgment for actual damages, a statutory penalty, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and attorney's fees, but eliminated the punitive damages.

Insurance Bad FaithPunitive DamagesIndependent InjuryActual DamagesContract DamagesTort DamagesExclusivity ProvisionStatutory PenaltyAttorney's FeesMedical Expenses
References
13
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Valley, Inc. v. Putman

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,198 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