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

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
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

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
Case No. M2010-02663-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision

Jerry Ray Davidson v. State of Tennessee

This post-conviction appeal addresses the extent of defense counsel's duty to present mitigation evidence during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that defense counsel's failure to develop and present crucial psychological mitigation evidence, despite possessing records of severe lifelong cognitive impairments, brain damage, and personality disorders, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Although the defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated kidnapping were upheld, his death sentence was vacated due to this deficient representation. The case is now remanded for a new capital sentencing hearing to ensure a fair consideration of all relevant mitigating factors.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselCapital PunishmentPost-Conviction AppealMitigation EvidenceMental Health DeficienciesCognitive ImpairmentSchizotypal Personality DisorderCerebral AtrophySentencing PhaseForensic Psychology
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Smith

Jane Doe, a lab technician trainee, was stuck by an HIV and TB infected needle while attempting to recap it. She asserts that surgeon John Smith, M.D., was negligent in the extraction, handling, and submission of the specimen, failing to ensure a safe container and adequate warning. Smith moved for summary judgment, contending he owed no duty to Doe, did not breach any duty if one existed, and that Doe's act of recapping the needle was an intervening cause. The court, however, determined that health professionals using needles have a duty to package them safely to mitigate risks for subsequent handlers. It found triable issues of fact regarding negligent packaging, Smith's supervisory responsibility over the nurse, and proximate cause, ultimately denying Smith's motion for summary judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceDuty of CareProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionVicarious LiabilityHospital PolicyInfectious DiseaseNeedle Stick InjuryHIV Transmission
References
11
Case No. 746 F.3d 191
Regular Panel Decision

Randy Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed a certified question from the Fifth Circuit concerning an employee's ability to recover against a nonsubscribing employer for injuries sustained from a known premises defect that their job duties required them to remedy. The Court clarified that, generally, an employer's premises-liability duty does not obligate them to warn or protect employees from unreasonably dangerous conditions that are open and obvious or already known to the employee. This general rule applies even for nonsubscribing employers, despite the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act's (TWCA) waiver of defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk. However, two exceptions exist: dangers from foreseeable third-party criminal activity and situations where the employee must necessarily use the dangerous premises and cannot adequately mitigate the risk. In these exceptional cases, the employer retains a duty to make the premises safe, and the TWCA prevents them from using the employee's awareness of the risk as a defense. The Court also affirmed that a separate 'necessary-instrumentalities' claim, based on an employer's failure to provide safe equipment, is distinct from a premises-liability claim and does not require contemporaneous negligent activity.

Premises LiabilityEmployer DutyNonsubscribing EmployerTexas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA)Open and Obvious HazardKnown DangerCertified QuestionNegligenceAssumption of RiskContributory Negligence
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Molloy v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought performance of duty disability retirement benefits after sustaining multiple left shoulder injuries across several work-related incidents. While the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System conceded permanent disability, the respondent Comptroller denied the application, concluding that the initial June 6, 2008 incident was not the proximate cause of the disability. Conflicting medical evidence was presented, with orthopedic surgeon Andrew Beharrie linking the disability to the 2008 incident, while independent medical examiner Bradley Wiener attributed the need for surgical intervention to subsequent incidents in 2009 and 2010. The Hearing Officer and Comptroller credited Wiener's opinion, noting the lack of immediate medical treatment after the first incident and the petitioner's return to full duty. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding it to be supported by rational, fact-based medical opinion and substantial evidence.

Disability RetirementPerformance of DutyCorrection OfficerShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationComptroller's DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,289 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