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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coleman v. Town of Hempstead

Plaintiff Paul Coleman, an employee of the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation, was suspended for 24 days after failing a random drug test he alleges was flawed. He filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for procedural and substantive due process violations, along with state law claims for negligence and malpractice, against the Town, its officials, and various private entities involved in the drug testing, including Medical Review Officers (MROs) and a laboratory. Defendants University Services (an MRO) and LabCorp Laboratories (the testing lab) moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing they are private entities not acting under color of state law for the § 1983 claims, and that LabCorp owed no duty to the plaintiff for the negligence claim. The Court denied both motions, finding that the plaintiff adequately alleged that LabCorp and University Services acted under color of state law, either through a close-nexus or symbiotic relationship with the Town. Regarding the negligence claim against LabCorp, the Court determined that New York law would recognize a common law duty of care owed by a drug testing laboratory to an employee in such circumstances, due to the significant and potentially devastating consequences of a false-positive drug test.

Drug TestingWorkplace Drug TestingDue Process ViolationSection 1983 ClaimNegligence ClaimMedical MalpracticeState Action DoctrinePrivate Entity LiabilityMotion to DismissUrine Sample
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon

Roy Solomon sued his former employer, Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., alleging negligence in the collection of his urine specimen during a mandatory drug test, which resulted in a false positive for marijuana. This false result led to his termination and inability to secure subsequent employment as a truck driver. A jury found Mission negligent and awarded Solomon damages for medical care, lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages for malice. On appeal, Mission challenged several aspects, including the existence of a duty, proximate cause, and the recoverability of damages. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mission owed its employees a duty of reasonable care in drug test specimen collection and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence, causation, and malice.

NegligenceDrug ScreeningFalse PositiveEmployment LawDamagesMental AnguishExemplary DamagesDepartment of TransportationSpecimen CollectionEmployer Duty
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc.

This case addresses whether a drug testing laboratory can be held liable in tort to a non-contracting subject for negligent testing. The plaintiff, while on probation in Orange County, submitted an oral fluid sample that Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., falsely reported as positive for marijuana. The lab allegedly used a lower cutoff level than recommended and failed to perform a confirmatory GC/MS test, leading to an extension of the plaintiff's probation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, asserting that a duty of reasonable care exists due to the severe consequences of inaccurate drug test results on individuals' lives and the lack of market incentives for testing accuracy. The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence.

Drug TestingNegligenceTort LiabilityForensic ToxicologyPrivity of ContractDuty of CareProbation ViolationFalse PositiveLaboratory StandardsCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
101
Case No. 26 NY3d 1074
Regular Panel Decision

Doctor Fred L. Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

Plaintiff Fred Pasternack, an airline pilot, sued LabCorp and ChoicePoint for negligence and fraud related to an alleged 'refusal to test' during a random drug screening. Pasternack claimed LabCorp's employee failed to follow 'shy bladder' procedures and inform him of the consequences of leaving, leading to the revocation of his airman certificates by the FAA. He also alleged fraud based on the employee's false statements to FAA investigators which the FAA relied upon. The New York Court of Appeals was asked to answer two certified questions from the Second Circuit: (1) whether federal drug testing regulations create a duty of care for labs under New York negligence law, and (2) whether third-party reliance can satisfy the reliance element of a New York fraud claim. The Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that only regulations implicating scientific integrity create a duty of care, and third-party reliance is insufficient for a fraud claim under New York law.

NegligenceFraudDuty of CareThird-Party RelianceDrug TestingFAA RegulationsDOT GuidelinesAirline PilotMedical Review OfficerAirman Certificates Revocation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,939 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