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

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. 2016-05-0242
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Sevilla-Palma, Norvin v. Wauford Air Conditioning, Inc.

Norvin Sevilla-Palma, an HVAC helper, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for an eye injury sustained while drilling without eye protection at Wauford Air Conditioning, Inc. Mr. Sevilla claimed his supervisor told him to hurry and not wear glasses, and that no safety equipment was provided. The employer, Wauford Air Conditioning, Inc., contended that Mr. Sevilla's willful failure to use a safety device barred his claim, citing prior similar injuries and available safety equipment. Judge Dale Tipps found Mr. Sevilla had actual notice of the safety rule, understood the danger, and had no valid excuse for non-compliance, denying his request for benefits. The matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing.

Workers' CompensationEye InjurySafety ViolationEmployer LiabilityWillful MisconductExpedited HearingCorneal AbrasionSafety DeviceDenial of BenefitsTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schultz v. Hi-Tech Construction & Management Services, Inc.

This legal text discusses the application of Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide a safe work environment. The statute's liability is governed by common-law negligence principles, and it extends to cases involving ladders. The text categorizes Labor Law § 200 cases into those stemming from dangerous premises conditions and those from the manner of work performance. When injuries arise from a dangerous condition, a general contractor may be liable if they controlled the worksite and had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the cause of a ladder slip and fall, and whether the defendants had control and notice of the dangerous condition.

Labor Law § 200Workplace SafetyCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionsSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactGeneral Contractor LiabilityLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityNotice of Dangerous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Zanki v. Cahill

Plaintiff sought damages for psychological injuries after slipping and falling down a stairwell. She claimed a recurrent dangerous condition of spilled food and drink, but admitted not seeing what caused her to slip, only noticing her sleeve was wet post-fall. The lower court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was affirmed on appeal. The majority found insufficient evidence that the alleged condition existed at the time of the fall or proximately caused it, relying on speculation. The dissenting opinion argued that the wet sleeve, coupled with evidence of frequent spillages and defendant's awareness, provided enough circumstantial evidence to raise a factual issue regarding causation and constructive notice of a recurring dangerous condition.

slip and fallpersonal injurysummary judgmentrecurring dangerous conditionproximate causecircumstantial evidencepremises liabilitynoticewet floorstairwell accident
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00572 [191 AD3d 692]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

Penny v. County of Suffolk

In a personal injury action, plaintiff Harry Penny, a track coach, tripped and fell over starting blocks during a track meet. Defendants New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Section XI moved for summary judgment, arguing they neither controlled the premises nor created the dangerous condition, and that plaintiff assumed the risk. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the equipment and the creation of the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the Appellate Division concluded that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff assumed the risk or that the starting blocks constituted an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionTrip and FallSports EventAssumption of RiskContributionIndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waiters v. Northern Trust Co.

Plaintiff, a cleaning worker for Collins Building Services, Inc. (CBS), was injured after slipping on a wet bathroom floor in a building managed by defendant Tower Realty. He commenced an action for personal injuries against Tower, the building owner, and the 10th floor occupant, alleging negligence for a slippery floor and failure to install a non-skid surface. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition, and that the plaintiff was hired to remedy such conditions. The Supreme Court initially denied the motions, but the Appellate Court reversed, holding that defendants met their burden of demonstrating a lack of actual or constructive notice. The court also affirmed the principle that a maintenance worker cannot claim injury from a dangerous condition they were hired to remedy, thereby granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligenceSlippery FloorCleaning Worker InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyActual NoticeConstructive NoticeHearsay Evidence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Francis Ione Lethcoe v. Ricky Ray Holden, et ux

This wrongful death case originated from Francis lone Lethcoe suing the co-owners of a property after her husband, Vernon Lethcoe, died from injuries sustained when the roof collapsed at his workplace, Bain and Holden Tire Company, Inc. The plaintiff argued several exceptions to landlord non-liability, including pre-existing dangerous conditions, the property's unsuitability for its leased purpose, negligent repairs by an owner, retained control by the owners, and a duty to ensure structural integrity due to inherently dangerous activity. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment granted to the defendants, finding the employer's knowledge of the dangerous condition (accumulated rubber dust on the roof) was co-extensive with or greater than the owners'. The court also concluded that any cleaning efforts by Ricky Ray Holden, a co-owner and president of the employer, were likely in his capacity as president, not as an owner retaining control.

Wrongful DeathLandlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoof CollapseDangerous ConditionLease AgreementEmployer ResponsibilityProperty Ownership
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 4,539 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