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

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Motor Exp., Inc.

Justice Dorsey concurs with the analysis of Jerry Rodriguez's bystander claim, specifically addressing his right to recover for emotional distress caused by a near-miss with Guzman's car, even without physical impact. The opinion reviews Texas jurisprudence on emotional distress claims, citing key cases such as Hill v. Kimball, Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. v. Hayter, and Houston Elec. Co. v. Dorsett, which established that physical impact is not a prerequisite for recovery. It further notes that physical manifestation of emotional injury is also not required, as affirmed in Boyles v. Kerr. Dorsey concludes that Rodriguez should not be barred from recovery for his emotional injuries despite not being physically struck.

emotional distressnegligencebystander claimno physical impactmental anguishTexas common lawfright and shockpsychological injurynear-miss accidenttort law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ean L. L.

The Center for Children and Families, Inc. filed a neglect petition under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, alleging emotional harm to a seven-year-old child due to his parents' domestic disputes. The respondent father sought an independent psychological examination of the child. However, the petitioner, Law Guardian, and respondent mother opposed this, citing the child's emotional fragility and previous evaluations. The court, considering the potential harm to the child, denied the father's motion. It ruled that further examinations would exacerbate the child's problems and that the child's needs outweighed the father's need for additional discovery.

Child neglectFamily Court ActParental conflictChild mental healthIndependent medical examinationPsychological evaluationEmotional harmBest interests of the childCourt discretionChild welfare
References
4
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eck v. Eck

The mother appealed a Family Court decision denying her request for increased visitation with her son. The Family Court had previously reduced visitation and required a mental health evaluation and treatment as a prerequisite for expansion, citing emotional harm caused by the mother's persistent filing of numerous petitions and unfounded child abuse reports. Despite the mother undergoing counseling, the Family Court found that the counseling did not adequately address the emotional harm to the child, with the social worker testifying that only a small percentage of sessions focused on this issue. The mother also continued to demonstrate a lack of insight into the detrimental effect of her actions. Consequently, the Family Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to find that expanding visitation would be in the child's best interests. This appellate court affirmed the Family Court's orders, finding a sound and substantial basis for its decision.

Child VisitationFamily LawAppellate ReviewMental Health EvaluationParental AlienationChild Abuse ReportsChange in CircumstancesBest Interests of the ChildAffirmed DecisionSocial Worker Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2013

Conroy v. Incorporated Village

The plaintiffs, former lifeguards, initiated an action against their employer, the defendant municipality, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 203-c due to the surreptitious installation of a video recording device in their changing room. Additionally, they asserted common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The defendant subsequently sought to amend its answer to include affirmative defenses, specifically invoking the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law and noncompliance with notice of claim statutes (CPLR 9801 and General Municipal Law § 50-e). The court partially granted the defendant's motion, allowing the Workers’ Compensation Law defense to be asserted only against the intentional infliction of emotional harm claim. However, the court denied the application of this defense to the negligence claim, noting that Labor Law § 203-c provides cumulative remedies. Furthermore, the court denied the defendant's attempt to assert a defense based on defective notices of claim, deeming the plaintiffs' notices sufficient.

Labor LawVideo SurveillanceEmployer LiabilityEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendNotice of ClaimMunicipal LawCivil Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casale v. Unipunch, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff seeking recovery for emotional distress and pecuniary damages after witnessing the electrocution of a co-worker at a defendant's work site. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, while the defendant cross-appealed the denial of dismissing the pecuniary damages claim. The court reviewed New York's bystander recovery rules, emphasizing that recovery for emotional injury from witnessing harm to a third person is generally precluded. The court found that the plaintiff did not meet the 'zone of danger' exception from Bovsun v Sanperi because the injured party was not an immediate family member. Consequently, both the emotional distress and the associated pecuniary damages claims were dismissed, modifying the lower court's order.

Emotional DistressPecuniary DamagesBystander RecoveryZone of DangerNegligenceCo-worker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate LawDuty of CareNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Higgins v. Metro-North Railroad

Plaintiff Gail Higgins sued Metro-North Railroad Company under FELA, alleging sexual harassment by a co-worker, Militano, which she claimed caused her latent multiple sclerosis to become symptomatic. She asserted claims of negligent failure to provide a safe workplace, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Higgins did not suffer a "physical impact" as required for negligent infliction of emotional distress under FELA's "zone of danger" test, as she was not physically injured nor in apprehension of physical harm. Furthermore, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress failed because Metro-North could not be held vicariously liable for Militano's actions, as his misconduct was for personal motives. There was also insufficient evidence that Metro-North knew of Militano's propensity for sexual harassment to support a negligent supervision claim.

Federal Employers' Liability ActSexual Harassment ClaimsNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment MotionZone of Danger TestPhysical Impact RequirementLatent Multiple SclerosisEmployer Vicarious LiabilityNegligent Supervision
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyatt v. Kroger Co.

Appellant Vickey Wyatt, individually and as next friend of her daughter Amber Barger, sued The Kroger Company after they witnessed an act of indecent exposure at a Kroger grocery store. Wyatt pursued claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, both of which were dismissed via summary judgment in favor of Kroger. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claim, ruling that Kroger was not liable for emotional distress without evidence of physical harm from third-party acts. It also upheld the summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, determining that Kroger's actions were not sufficiently extreme and outrageous to warrant recovery. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealThird-Party Criminal ActEmotional HarmPhysical Harm RequirementIndecent ExposureBusiness Owner DutyMental Anguish Damages
References
44
Case No. Davidson County Circuit Court No. 97C-55, C.A. No. 01A01-9712-CV-00690
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1999

Mildred Johnson and Gary Johnson v. Charles T. Cantrell and Patricia Cantrell

Mildred and Gary Johnson appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Charles T. and Patricia Cantrell. The case originated from an incident where Mildred Johnson, an employee, suffered a mini-stroke following a confrontational interaction with the Cantrells, who were landlords concerned about property removal. The Johnsons sued, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and later attempted to assert a negligence claim on appeal. The trial court found the Cantrells' actions insufficient to establish assault or outrageous conduct for emotional distress. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the threats were not of imminent harm and the conduct, while upsetting, did not meet the high standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary JudgmentAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceAppellate ReviewTort LawCivil ProcedureFactual DisputeImminent HarmOutrageous Conduct
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,806 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