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

O'ROURKE v. Smithsonian Institution Press

Kevin O'Rourke filed a copyright infringement action against the Smithsonian Institution Press and The Smithsonian Institution, alleging they infringed his book "Currier and Ives: The Irish in America" by publishing "Currier and Ives: America Imagined." The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims against the United States to the Court of Federal Claims. O'Rourke contended that the defendants were independent entities not falling under "the United States" for the statute's purposes. The Court, however, found that "the United States" in Section 1498(b) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the Smithsonian Institution and its press, referencing previous rulings where the Smithsonian was considered part of the federal government. Consequently, the Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, closing the case.

Copyright InfringementSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Copyright ActCourt of Federal ClaimsSmithsonian InstitutionUnited StatesSovereign ImmunityMotion to Dismiss28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)Tucker Act
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2002

Finnigan v. Rochester Institute of Technology

The plaintiff, an employee of RADEC Corporation, was injured at a building owned by Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. Initially, a jury apportioned fault and awarded damages, but after reinstruction, RIT's fault was eliminated, leaving RADEC and the plaintiff responsible. Both parties moved for directed verdicts, with the court granting RIT's. On appeal, the higher court determined the lower court had erred in interpreting the jury's verdict concerning Labor Law § 241 (6) and Rule 23. Consequently, the appellate court denied RIT's motion for a directed verdict, granted RIT's alternative request for a new trial, and denied the plaintiff's motion, thereby granting a new trial on both liability and damages.

Labor LawNegligenceDirected VerdictNew TrialApportionment of FaultIndustrial CodeOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityJury Charge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seife v. National Institutes of Health

Plaintiff Charles Seife, acting pro se, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records concerning "special governmental employees" (SGEs) who serve on NIH advisory panels. Seife specifically requested documents from the ethics files of 44 NIH SGEs related to managing conflicts of interest, including "recusal lists" and "waiver determinations." NIH produced partially redacted documents, withholding information based on FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6, which protect confidential financial disclosure reports and personal privacy. The court granted Seife's motion in part, ordering NIH to release unredacted waiver determinations concerning SGEs' financial interests and relationships, but allowed redaction of identifying information about spouses or dependent children, and upheld the withholding of recusal lists. The decision balanced the SGEs' privacy interests against the public's interest in government transparency and accountability regarding potential conflicts of interest.

FOIANational Institutes of HealthSpecial Governmental EmployeesConflict of InterestRecusal ListsWaiver DeterminationsEthics in Government ActFinancial DisclosurePrivacy InterestsGovernment Transparency
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2000

Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust v. Gerber Life Insurance

Plaintiff Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust (OHI) sued Gerber Life Insurance Company (Gerber), Island Group Administration, Inc. (IGA), and RMTS Associates, alleging Gerber refused to reimburse stop-loss claims and issue a letter of certification to a lender. OHI had established a self-insurance program, and Gerber issued an aggregate stop-loss (ASL) policy. OHI commenced the action on the day the ASL policy expired, before the attachment point for reimbursement could be calculated and before submitting proper documentation. The Supreme Court denied Gerber's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that OHI failed to demonstrate compliance with the ASL policy's reimbursement terms, lacked material facts to support its claims, and initiated the action prematurely. Both causes of action were dismissed against Gerber.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentAggregate Stop-Loss PolicyContract DisputeReimbursementPolicy TermsAppellate ReviewGood FaithDocumentation RequirementsAgency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1990

Forelli v. Pratt Institute

Plaintiff Frank Forelli sustained personal injuries in a fall through a skylight while performing construction work for H & D Electric Co., Inc., at a site owned by Pratt Institute. A jury verdict initially found Caristo Construction Corp. 50% at fault, H & D Electric Co., Inc. 40%, and Pratt Institute and Catamount Construction Corp. each 5%, awarding plaintiff $1,362,000. Judgment was granted against Pratt Institute under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court found Caristo Construction Corp. liable for negligence and under an indemnification contract, which survived the termination of its general contractor role. The judgment was modified, conditioned on the plaintiff accepting a reduced damages award of $838,000, encompassing past and future pain and suffering, lost earnings, and medical expenses. If the plaintiff stipulates to this reduction, the judgment, as modified, is affirmed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentWorkplace FallSkylight HazardNegligence LiabilityLabor Law § 240Contractual IndemnityApportionment of DamagesExcessive Verdict ReviewDamages Reduction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvamoser v. Pratt Institute

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Pratt Institute and 205 Ashland Associates, for personal injuries resulting from a criminal assault. The plaintiff was robbed on a public street near her residence, owned by 205 Ashland Associates and leased by Pratt Institute, then forced into her apartment and to a bank. She alleged negligence by the defendants for a defective or open front door, contending they failed to provide adequate security. The Supreme Court found the defendants' actions were not a substantial cause of the injury, as the criminal act originated off-premises and the plaintiff would have been compelled into her apartment regardless of the door's security. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the causal connection between any negligence and the criminal act was too attenuated as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryCriminal AssaultNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCausationProximate CauseLandlord LiabilityAppellate ReviewSecurity Measures
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nugent v. Rogosin Institute

Peggy Nugent, a former head nurse at Rogosin Institute, Inc.'s Kidney Center, sued her employer for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Administrative Code (NYCAC). Nugent claimed she developed allergic asthma due to glutaraldehyde, a chemical used in the workplace, leading to her termination. After experiencing severe breathing problems, taking leave, and having her request for an office relocation denied, she was fired in February 1997. Rogosin moved for summary judgment, arguing Nugent's asthma was not a 'qualifying disability' under the ADA because it only prevented her from working at their specific facility, not a broad range of jobs, and did not substantially limit her ability to breathe outside the workplace. The court, citing established precedents, agreed that her condition did not meet the ADA's definition of a qualifying disability. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims.

ADAEmployment DiscriminationDisability RightsAllergic AsthmaWorkplace AccommodationSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationGlutaraldehyde ExposureOccupational HealthNew York Human Rights Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Proctor v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Plaintiff Georgiana Proctor sustained injuries after tripping over a partially opened freight elevator door at her workplace, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability against Rensselaer as the property owner, Otis Elevator Company as the installer, and Schindler Elevator Corporation and Millar Elevator Service Company (collectively Millar) as the maintenance contractor. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Rensselaer and Otis but denied Millar's motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that Rensselaer had no actual or constructive notice of the elevator's dangerous condition and Otis was not liable due to lack of control over four decades. The court further determined that Millar failed to meet its burden for summary judgment, as factual issues remained regarding potential causes like 'rebounding' or 'drift' of the elevator doors.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityElevator AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyDangerous ConditionProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucklen v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Plaintiff, a former graduate student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), sued RPI alleging national origin and sex discrimination after failing his doctoral preliminary examination three times. He claimed RPI denied him fair opportunities to retake the exam compared to other students, violating Title VII, Title IX, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII and New York Human Rights Law claims related to employment discrimination, reasoning that Title VII does not cover purely academic decisions. However, the court denied RPI's motion to dismiss the Title IX and New York Human Rights Law claims concerning educational discrimination, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged events to support an inference of sex-based discrimination in the provision of educational services.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActTitle IX Education LawNew York Human Rights LawGraduate Student RightsAcademic DismissalPreliminary ExaminationMotion to Dismiss
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berkeley v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained when unsecured lockers fell on him at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)'s gymnasium. Plaintiff alleged RPI created a dangerous condition by failing to secure the lockers, making the incident foreseeable. Defendants moved for summary judgment, presenting expert testimony that the lockers met industry standards and required deliberate force to fall. Plaintiff provided a counter-affidavit stating good practice dictated securing the lockers. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment against RPI, finding defendants' expert affidavit insufficient and lacking foundational facts, thus RPI failed to meet its burden for summary judgment. The motion was denied for RPI, while summary judgment for the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York was affirmed due to lack of opposition on appeal.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityUnsecured LockersForeseeabilityExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewGymnasium AccidentDangerous ConditionPersonal Injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 152 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