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
Oct 22, 1980

Hilowitz v. Hilowitz

In a negligence action for personal injuries, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 22, 1980. The order, issued by Justice Hyman, had denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defense of collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that an arbitration award, even without judicial confirmation, can serve as a basis for res judicata and collateral estoppel if there was a final determination on the merits. The court referenced Kilduff v Donna Oil Corp. and distinguished Hana Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v Sheet Metal Workers Int. Assn. All other contentions raised by the plaintiff were deemed to be without merit.

NegligencePersonal InjuryAppealCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataArbitration AwardJudicial ConfirmationFinal DeterminationAppellate DecisionSupreme Court Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chatelain v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, discharged from Mount Sinai Hospital for misconduct, was denied unemployment benefits by the New York State Department of Labor. Though the administrative decision was upheld on appeal, plaintiff did not pursue state court review but instead filed a federal action alleging wrongful discharge and breach of duty of fair representation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on the administrative ruling. The District Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the collateral estoppel defense, holding that administrative agency decisions not reviewed by a state court, especially those from potentially unfair hearings, should not be given preclusive effect in federal court actions under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Wrongful DischargeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawFederal Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActDue ProcessSummary JudgmentGrievance Procedures
References
8
Case No. 09-cv-4229
Regular Panel Decision

Serby v. First Alert, Inc.

Plaintiff Victor M. Serby, an attorney proceeding pro se, brought this action against First Alert, Inc. and BRK Brands, Inc. for breach of a pre-existing settlement agreement. Serby alleged the Defendants failed to pay royalties for smoke detectors incorporating his '434 Patent, stemming from a prior patent infringement litigation. Defendants countered that their new SA340 model smoke alarm did not meet the 'unopenable' condition of the settlement agreement, thus absolving them of royalty payments. Serby moved for summary judgment and to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses, arguing that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred these defenses due to the previous litigation and settlement. The Court denied Serby's motion in its entirety, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the similarity of the smoke alarm models and that neither res judicata, collateral estoppel, nor contractual estoppel applied. Furthermore, the Court determined that the heightened pleading standards of Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly do not extend to affirmative defenses.

Patent InfringementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelContractual EstoppelPleading StandardsSmoke DetectorsRoyalties'434 Patent
References
19
Case No. 14-17-00223-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Rebecca Wilson v. George Fleming and Fleming & Associates, L.L.P.

This case returns to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals on remand from the Supreme Court of Texas. Appellants, approximately 4,000 former clients of George Fleming and Fleming & Associates, had sued the Fleming Firm for breach of contractual and fiduciary duties related to deductions from a fen-phen settlement. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the Fleming Firm based on collateral estoppel, which was appealed. After a complex appellate history involving a reversal by this court, a reversal by the Supreme Court of Texas on authentication, and a remand, this court now rules on the merits of the collateral estoppel defense. The court concludes that the Fleming Firm failed to conclusively establish the element of privity between the appellants and the Harpst plaintiffs (a smaller severed group), thus preventing the application of collateral estoppel. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessPrivityClass ActionLegal MalpracticeClient Representation
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tewksbury v. Dowling

Lynn Tewksbury sued Drs. Frank Dowling and Thomas Aronson, alleging that her involuntary confinement at St. John's Episcopal Hospital violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights and constituted medical malpractice, false imprisonment, and assault and battery. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were not state actors and that claims were barred by collateral estoppel. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment to strike the qualified immunity defense. The court found that Defendants acted under color of state law due to their joint participation with state officials. It also ruled that Tewksbury's claims were not barred by collateral estoppel and that a material issue of fact existed regarding medical malpractice. Finally, the court concluded that the private physician defendants were not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. Consequently, Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and Defendants' motions were denied.

Involuntary ConfinementDue ProcessFourteenth AmendmentMedical MalpracticeFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityState Action DoctrineMental Hygiene Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. American Building Maintenance Co.

Ellis L. Slaughter, a former employee of American Building Maintenance Co. of New York (ABM), moved for partial summary judgment on his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim and to dismiss ABM's affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. Slaughter was terminated by ABM due to excessive absences under a 'no fault' policy, stemming from recurring back pain, a condition known to ABM's predecessor. The court found that Slaughter's notice to ABM regarding his FMLA-qualifying leave was insufficient for summary judgment in his favor, as merely calling in sick did not adequately inform ABM of his FMLA-protected condition, and doctors' notes were provided with delay. However, the court granted Slaughter's motion to dismiss ABM's collateral estoppel defense, ruling that a prior arbitration decision, which upheld his termination for excessive absenteeism, did not preclude his federal statutory FMLA claim because the issues resolved were distinct and the arbitrator did not consider FMLA specifics. The motion for summary judgment was thus granted in part and denied in part.

FMLASummary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelAbsenteeism PolicyTermination of EmploymentBack InjuryMedical Leave NoticeLabor LawEmployee RightsPreclusive Effect of Arbitration
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowen ex rel. Doe v. Arnold

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed whether a person convicted of rape and aggravated sexual battery is collaterally estopped from relitigating these issues in a subsequent civil lawsuit filed by the victim. The trial court had applied collateral estoppel, granting partial summary judgment to the victim. The Court affirmed this decision, abolishing the strict party mutuality requirement for both offensive and defensive collateral estoppel in Tennessee. The Court adopted sections 29 and 85 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments as guidelines. This was reasoned by the Court that the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior criminal trial, and no circumstances warranted relitigation in the civil action.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionOffensive Collateral EstoppelDefensive Collateral EstoppelParty Mutuality RequirementRestatement (Second) of JudgmentsCriminal Conviction in Civil CaseSummary JudgmentRapeAggravated Sexual Battery
References
88
Case No. M2015-00762-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2016

Ms. Bowen Ex Rel. John Doe, N v. William E. Arnold, Jr.

This appeal addresses whether a criminal conviction for rape and aggravated sexual battery can collaterally estop a defendant from relitigating these issues in a subsequent civil lawsuit filed by the victim. The trial court applied collateral estoppel, which was challenged by the defendant on grounds of lacking party mutuality and differing issues between criminal and civil proceedings. The Supreme Court of Tennessee abolished the strict party mutuality requirement for both offensive and defensive collateral estoppel, adopting sections 29 and 85 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments as guiding principles. Applying these new guidelines, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment against the defendant. This decision prevents the defendant from relitigating the issues of whether he raped and sexually battered the minor plaintiff in the ongoing civil action.

Collateral EstoppelNonmutual Collateral EstoppelOffensive Collateral EstoppelDefensive Collateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionCivil LawsuitRapeAggravated Sexual BatteryRes JudicataJudicial Economy
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Lozada v. GBE Contracting Corp.

Klever Lozada, a plaintiff, was injured after falling from a truck while painting a highway bridge. He and other plaintiffs initially brought an action against the State of New York and GBE Contracting Corp., the general contractor. A prior ruling in the Court of Claims, which initially granted Lozada an interlocutory judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), was reversed on appeal, concluding that Lozada was a recalcitrant worker and his own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Subsequently, GBE Contracting Corp. moved for summary judgment in the Supreme Court action, citing collateral estoppel based on the appellate reversal. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the issue of Lozada's sole proximate cause had been previously decided, thus precluding relitigation.

Collateral EstoppelRecalcitrant WorkerSummary JudgmentLabor LawPersonal InjuryAppealsProximate CauseDamagesQueens CountySupreme Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. New York Telephone Co.

Edward C. Ryan was terminated by New York Telephone Company (Telco) for alleged theft, leading to criminal charges and denial of unemployment benefits. While criminal charges were dropped and the unemployment benefits denial was upheld, Ryan sued Telco for false arrest, malicious prosecution, slander, and wrongful discharge. His wife, Darlene Ryan, also claimed related injuries. Special Term denied Telco's summary judgment motion and struck its res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses. This dissenting opinion argues that the administrative finding of Ryan's misconduct should preclude relitigation under res judicata and collateral estoppel, thus the Special Term's order should be reversed and Telco's cross-motion granted.

Res JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment BenefitsWrongful DischargeFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,224 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