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
Aug 20, 2012

Pooler v. Nassau University Medical Center

Plaintiff Keith Pooler, an inmate, sued Nassau Health Care Corporation (NHCC), Dr. Bruce David, and Joseph Farhangian for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pooler alleged he was denied anxiety and sleeping disorder medication, leading to a severe anxiety attack and suicide attempt. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of deliberate indifference. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing Pooler's failure to exhaust remedies and finding no deliberate indifference. Consequently, federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Prisoner Medical CareDeliberate IndifferenceEighth AmendmentSuicide AttemptMental Health ServicesSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesPrison Litigation Reform Act42 U.S.C. Section 1983Pro Se Litigation
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gajadhar

Defendant Winston Gajadhar was tried before a 12-member jury. During deliberations, a juror became ill, and defendant, opposing a mistrial, waived his right to a 12-person jury, requesting that deliberations continue with the remaining 11 jurors. The Supreme Court granted this request, and Gajadhar was convicted of attempted robbery and felony murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the state constitution does not permit a defendant to consent to a jury of less than 12 members. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that article I, section 2 of the state constitution, as amended in 1938, allows a noncapital criminal defendant to waive the right to a 12-person jury and consent to deliberations by 11 jurors under proper circumstances, provided the waiver is made in writing and in open court.

Jury WaiverEleven-Member JuryCriminal Procedure LawConstitutional LawJury DeliberationsTrial by JuryFelony MurderAttempted RobberyAppellate ReviewJury Substitution
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc.

The case involves a worker's fall through a roof, leading to a motion for summary judgment on liability by the plaintiff based on Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on their 'recalcitrant worker' defense and for conditional indemnification against the third-party defendant, Wm. C. McCombs Company. The court addressed whether the facts supported the recalcitrant worker defense, which requires proof of a deliberate refusal to use available safety equipment. The court found a conspicuous lack of evidence for deliberate refusal, stating that unintentional failure or negligent omission would not support the defense against absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court noted that workers were not expected to be tied on at all times and had to unhook for tasks. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove the crucial element of deliberate refusal, and their summary judgment motion on this defense was denied. The court granted partial summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff and granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification from McCombs, determining McCombs was an agent by operation of law.

Labor Law § 240(1)Recalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSafety EquipmentDeliberate RefusalNegligent OmissionContractual Indemnification
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.T. v. Gross

Plaintiff, an incarcerated individual with a history of psychiatric issues, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that various correctional facility medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious psychiatric needs. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted. The Court found no verifiable evidence that any alleged lack of treatment caused Plaintiff substantial harm or a worse lifelong prognosis, noting his post-incarceration stabilization. Even assuming a serious medical need, the Court concluded that Defendants responded to acute episodes and did not act with deliberate indifference. Consequently, the Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Prisoner RightsEighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceSerious Medical NeedsPsychiatric CareBipolar DisorderSummary JudgmentCorrectional FacilityMental Health Satellite UnitQualified Immunity
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matsos Contracting Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor

GBE Contracting Corporation faced allegations of failing to pay prevailing wages on public works contracts. The Department of Labor initiated proceedings, identifying the petitioner as an alter ego of GBE, thus subjecting it to similar sanctions. Despite being notified of a hearing, both GBE and the petitioner purposefully defaulted, leading to a finding that GBE deliberately underpaid wages and that the petitioner was its alter ego. The petitioner then sought judicial review via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the administrative determination. However, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a party cannot appeal an administrative determination entered upon their deliberate default.

Public WorksPrevailing WageAlter EgoDefault JudgmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewLabor LawCPLR Article 78Corporate LiabilityWage Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Sheridan

Plaintiff, an inmate, sued defendants Wayne Crosier and Randall Lodge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law negligence for alleged failure to treat a fractured fibula sustained during a use-of-force incident. Plaintiff claimed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and negligence in not discovering his injury earlier. The Court found plaintiff was uncooperative and belligerent, rebuffing medical staff, and that his injury was not immediately apparent. The Court concluded that neither defendant acted with deliberate indifference nor were negligent, as they lacked knowledge of the injury and took reasonable steps to monitor plaintiff's condition, ultimately dismissing the complaint.

InmatePrison medical careConstitutional rightsDeliberate indifferenceSection 1983NegligenceEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCorrectional officersMental health treatment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Breland v. Abate

Plaintiff Vincent Breland sued various correctional officials and the City of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for injuries sustained from other inmates while in pretrial detention. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not prove deliberate indifference. The Court found that Breland failed to demonstrate more than mere negligence against the individual officers (Lawrence and Chavies) regarding their actions during the inmate altercation. Consequently, the derivative Monell claims against the City, based on the officers' alleged deliberate indifference and the City's purported failure to ensure inmate security, also failed. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Deliberate IndifferenceSummary JudgmentCorrectional FacilitiesInmate SafetyMonell ClaimMunicipal LiabilityState Law ClaimsSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2007

Streeter v. Goord

This pro se action, filed by inmate Leon Streeter under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, specifically concerning his sickle cell anemia and the management of his port-a-cath, by several correctional and medical personnel. The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference by any of the named defendants. The court concluded that while plaintiff experienced pain, the medical care provided, including prescribed medications and surgical consultations, did not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the entire action was dismissed.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Eighth AmendmentDeliberate IndifferenceMedical NeedsPrisoner RightsSickle Cell AnemiaSummary JudgmentMagistrate JudgeReport-RecommendationPort-a-cath
References
25
Case No. 2018-06-0810
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2018

Smith, LaShonda v. Macy's Corporate Services

Ms. Lashonda Smith sought temporary disability and medical benefits after sustaining an injury on a Safe Harbor bus while returning home from work at Macy's. Macy's denied the claim, arguing the injury did not occur within the course and scope of employment, as they did not provide or pay for the bus service. The Court evaluated whether Macy's made a 'deliberate and substantial payment' for the transportation, as required for an exception to the 'going and coming' rule. Despite Macy's facilitating the service and deducting a nominal fee from employees' paychecks, the Court found insufficient evidence that Macy's deliberately and substantially paid for Ms. Smith's transportation. Therefore, the Court denied Ms. Smith's request for workers’ compensation benefits, concluding she is unlikely to prevail at a final hearing.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingCourse and Scope of EmploymentGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionEmployer-Provided TransportationBus AccidentTemporary DisabilityMedical BenefitsRecruiting Services AgreementPayroll Deduction
References
10
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This case addresses the aftermath of the 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in numerous student deaths and injuries. Plaintiffs filed six lawsuits, alleging that the University and its officials violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process by acting with deliberate indifference to a state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also brought state law negligence claims. The Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal claims, finding the University immune under the Eleventh Amendment and the officials not liable due to a lack of "deliberate indifference." Subsequently, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. § 1983Eleventh Amendment immunityState-created dangerSubstantive due processDeliberate indifferenceSummary judgmentSupplemental jurisdictionState law claims
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 216 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