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

Miller v. Loblaw, Inc.

Plaintiff Marie Miller initiated a personal injury lawsuit in Chemung County against Loblaw, Inc., and Pasyl Corp., alleging negligence related to a fall in a parking lot. Defendant Loblaw, Inc. filed a motion under CPLR 3121 and 3124 to compel Miller to appear for a physical examination by Dr. Bruce Stewart in Ithaca. Plaintiff's counsel objected to the location, arguing it was too distant from his Elmira office and requested compensation for travel. The court, after considering similar statutes and cases, determined that the 33-mile distance to Ithaca was not unreasonable for the examination. Consequently, the court granted Loblaw's motion, directing Marie Miller to appear for the physical examination without obligating the defendants to cover the plaintiff's attorney's travel expenses or fees.

Physical ExaminationMotion to CompelCPLR 3121CPLR 3124Attorney FeesTravel ExpensesChemung CountyIthacaNegligencePersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. McHugh

Marytherese Miller, a legal technician at West Point, sued her employer, the Secretary of the Army, alleging employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, hostile work environment, and Privacy Act violations. Miller, who underwent two knee surgeries, requested worksite and parking accommodations, and advanced leave, which she claims were denied or inadequately provided. She also alleged a job reclassification, lowered performance evaluations, and inappropriate comments from co-workers were retaliatory or created a hostile environment. The Government moved for summary judgment, arguing Miller was not disabled under the ADA during the relevant periods, her accommodations were reasonable, and her other claims lacked prima facie evidence or causal connection. The court found Miller did not provide sufficient medical evidence of disability prior to her second surgery and that reasonable accommodations were offered afterward. It also determined that alleged retaliatory actions predated protected activities or lacked causation, and that hostile work environment claims were not severe or pervasive enough. Finally, Miller's Privacy Act claim lacked proof of record disclosure or adverse effect. Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentPrivacy ActSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII
References
85
Case No. CV-23-0661
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Candice Miller (Wallace Miller (dec'd))

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled that the decedent's death from COVID-19 was causally-related to his employment, granting death benefits to his spouse, Candace Miller. The decedent, a paratransit operator, frequently transported visibly ill passengers and contracted COVID-19 shortly after his last workday, leading to his death. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier controverted the claim, arguing it was not a compensable accident. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claim, finding that the decedent was at an increased risk of COVID-19 exposure due to his public-facing job and regular interactions with symptomatic individuals during a period of high community infection rates, thus constituting an extraordinary event. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that workplace contraction of COVID-19 qualifies as an unusual hazard and is compensable under the Workers' Compensation Law when supported by substantial evidence.

COVID-19Causally-related deathWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsParatransit operatorWorkplace exposureElevated riskExtraordinary eventSubstantial evidenceCredibility of witnessesIncubation period
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01739
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Cruz v. Miller UK Ltd.

This action concerns an accident at LaGuardia Airport where plaintiff Angel Cruz, a construction worker, was struck by an excavator bucket. Cruz initiated a lawsuit against various entities, including Miller UK Ltd., Miller International Ltd., and Miller International Holdings Limited (the Miller defendants). The Supreme Court initially denied the Miller defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, subsequently reversed this decision, granting the motion to dismiss against Miller UK Ltd. and Miller International Ltd. The court cited a prior related case, Cruz v City of New York, and applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to determine that there was no personal jurisdiction over these two entities.

Personal jurisdictionCollateral estoppelMotion to dismissConstruction accidentAppellate reviewCorporate liabilityProcedural lawJurisdictional challengeInter-county transferCPLR 3211 (a) (8)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L. Fatato, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.

Plaintiffs, three New York wholesale beer distributors (Fatato, NYS-TS, and Vasiliow), initiated a diversity-based action against defendant Miller Brewing Company for damages stemming from an alleged breach of an oral beer distribution agreement and unjust enrichment. They claimed Miller offered an exclusive distributorship in several New York counties if they maintained beer flow during a strike involving Miller's subsidiary, Better Brands. Plaintiffs assert they incurred significant expenses and property damage in reliance on this promise, but Miller allegedly breached the agreement after the strike concluded. Miller sought summary judgment, arguing the contract claims were barred by New York's statute of frauds and the unjust enrichment claim lacked legal merit. The District Court denied Miller's motion, determining that the applicability of equitable estoppel in overcoming the statute of frauds presented a factual controversy, and genuine issues of fact existed regarding Miller's alleged enrichment and the equity of restitution.

Breach of contractUnjust enrichmentStatute of fraudsEquitable estoppelSummary judgmentOral agreementBeer distributionDetrimental relianceQuasi-contractImplied contract
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03994
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

Miller v. W Servs. Group, LLC

David L. Miller (plaintiff) sustained injuries from a slip and fall, receiving workers' compensation benefits from Safety National Casualty Corp., the insurer for his employer, Apple, Inc. Miller settled his personal injury claim against W Services Group, LLC for $1,350,000. He then attempted a "walk away" agreement with Safety National, where the insurer would waive its lien in exchange for Miller waiving future workers' compensation benefits. After an initial agreement by email, Safety National reneged upon learning Miller returned to work. The Supreme Court in Onondaga County enforced this settlement, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed, ruling that any such agreement involving a waiver of a workers' compensation lien requires approval from the Workers' Compensation Board to be enforceable. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on alternative relief.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement EnforceabilityLien WaiverAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardThird-Party LiabilityInsurance SubrogationContract DisputeStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Taco Bell Corp.

This Memorandum and Order addresses an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by Penny D. Miller against Taco Bell Corporation, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law. Miller, who has a severe hearing impairment, claimed she was denied a promotion and terminated due to her disability, and subjected to a hostile work environment. The defendant sought summary judgment, which the court granted. The court determined that while a factual dispute existed regarding the extent of Miller's disability, she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not formally apply for the promotion, and her termination and alleged lack of communication skills were supported by non-discriminatory reasons related to her interpersonal abilities, not her hearing. Furthermore, the court found her hostile work environment claims to be sporadic and not severe enough to constitute an abusive environment. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed, and state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADANew York State Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentHearing ImpairmentPretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie Case
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Davis

This case concerns a negligence action filed by Betty Jo Miller, individually and on behalf of her infant son Thomas Miller, following injuries sustained in an automobile collision. The infant was a passenger in a car driven by defendant James Sheldon, which collided with another vehicle. Sheldon, who was the infant's foster parent, raised an affirmative defense of in loco parentis to claim immunity from negligence liability. The court examined whether foster parents, who are compensated by a social welfare department and provide care, but not financial support, can establish an in loco parentis relationship. Ultimately, the court found that financial responsibility is a prerequisite for such a relationship and granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Sheldon's affirmative defense.

In Loco Parentis DoctrineFoster Parent LiabilityParental ImmunityNegligence ActionPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentAffirmative Defense DismissalCPLR 3211 MotionFinancial Support RequirementSocial Welfare Department Involvement
References
7
Case No. 87 SSM 43
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2018

Wayne Schnapp v. Miller's Launch

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed an order in a case between Wayne Schnapp, the respondent, and Miller's Launch, Inc., the appellant. The court found that triable issues of fact exist concerning whether Miller's Launch, Inc. breached its duty of care owed to Mr. Schnapp. This duty of care is established under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, specifically 33 USC § 905[b]. The certified question presented in the case was answered in the affirmative. Chief Judge DiFiore and several other judges concurred in this decision, while Judge Feinman took no part.

Workers' CompensationDuty of CareLongshore ActBreach of DutyTriable Issues of FactOrder AffirmedCertified QuestionAppellate ReviewMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1988

Miller v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 17, 1988, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Long Island Lighting Co. The case stemmed from a personal injury claim by Thomas Miller, who allegedly fell from a ladder at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on March 24, 1980. Miller's testimony was inconsistent, and the plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), which mandates proper safety devices for workers. The trial court's refusal to direct judgment in the plaintiffs' favor and its denial of a motion to set aside the verdict were upheld, as the resolution of credibility and accuracy issues is within the jury's province, and the decision was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCredibilitySuffolk County
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,468 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