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

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. 25874/98
Regular Panel Decision

Jun Chi Guan v. Tuscan Dairy Farms

This dissenting opinion concerns a case where plaintiff Shao Zhen Kwan, a grandmother, sought damages for emotional injuries after witnessing her grandson's fatal accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that a grandparent does not qualify as "immediate family" for emotional distress claims under New York law and that the grandmother did not sufficiently witness the event. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The dissenting judge argues that established precedent does not preclude grandparents from "immediate family" status, citing their special legal recognition and caregiving roles. Furthermore, the judge contends that contemporaneous awareness, rather than literal witnessing, is sufficient for such claims. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Immediate Family DoctrineZone of Danger RuleEmotional Distress DamagesBystander RecoveryNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressGrandparent Visitation RightsNew York Tort LawSummary Judgment MotionDe Facto Parent StatusContemporaneous Awareness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves the appeal by the estate of Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., from a chancery court judgment dismissing a claim for death benefits against Shelton Security Service, Inc. The employee, a security guard, died of heart failure while on duty after a verbal confrontation with suspected shoplifters who threatened to kill him. The trial court initially dismissed the claim, ruling that the emotional stress was not extraordinary or unusual for his occupation. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Panel's decision, concluding that the threat of death constituted an unusual and abnormal emotional stimulus, thus reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeart FailureEmotional StressArising Out of EmploymentUnusual StressSecurity GuardCausationReversed and RemandedSudden Cardiac Death
References
16
Case No. M1998-00023-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2001

Robert Cunningham, Jr.,e t al v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the estate of employee Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., who died of heart failure while on duty as a security guard. The claim for death benefits against the employer, Shelton Security Service, Inc., was initially dismissed by the trial court, which found the emotional stress experienced was not extraordinary for a security guard. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this dismissal, deeming there was sufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review and agreed with the Panel, concluding that the threat to kill the employee during a confrontation constituted a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual and abnormal nature, making his death compensable. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackEmotional StressSecurity GuardCausationUnusual Employment StressDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandTrial Court Error
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1988

Brophy v. County of Putnam

The plaintiff, a former Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging the county opposed his efforts to obtain workers' compensation benefits and wrongfully terminated his employment. His motion for partial summary judgment, based on General Municipal Law § 207-c, was denied by the Supreme Court due to an unjustified five-year delay in asserting the statutory claim, which would prejudice the county. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the motion was affirmed on appeal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's argument against the "theory-of-pleadings doctrine" and emphasizing the lengthy and unexplained delay in asserting the claim after the law's amendment.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPartial Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisability PensionEmployment TerminationProcedural DelayStatutory ClaimAppellate ReviewAffirmationGeneral Municipal Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1992

Jones v. Utilities Painting Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant, Consolidated Edison Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order had granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to include a cause of action for future medical surveillance costs and emotional distress against Consolidated Edison Co. The appellate court reversed the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion. The court found that the cause of action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing several prior cases as precedent.

Medical Surveillance CostsEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Amendment of ComplaintAppealReversal of OrderMotion DeniedThird-Party DefendantSupreme CourtNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1981

Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against his supervisor, Manobianco, and employer, Maimonides Medical Center, following an alleged defamatory statement. Defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed several affirmative defenses, including Workers' Compensation and absolute privilege. The appellate court reversed the order in part, striking the defense of qualified privilege for specific causes of action and the Workers' Compensation defense where employer participation in intentional torts was alleged. However, the Workers' Compensation defense was upheld for claims based on respondeat superior and those where the injury was deemed compensable, even partially. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law abrogates common-law remedies for such injuries, leaving recourse to the Legislature for perceived harsh outcomes.

DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeRespondeat SuperiorCoemployee ImmunityEmployer LiabilityCommon Law Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thurmon v. Sellers

This case concerns consolidated appeals arising from a fatal car accident where a five-year-old child died and others sustained injuries. Plaintiffs Dana Scott and Shane Thurmon, parents of the deceased, and Carl J. Fuhs, the other driver, sued Donald E. Sellers, Sr., and his son, Donald Edward Sellers, Jr. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of vicarious liability under respondeat superior but reversed the dismissal under the family purpose doctrine, finding Mr. Sellers vicariously liable. The court also held that parents can recover filial consortium damages in wrongful death actions and affirmed the wrongful death award for Mrs. Scott and the negligent infliction of emotional distress award for Mr. Fuhs. The case is remanded for judgment consistent with the opinion.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorFamily Purpose DoctrineLoss of Filial ConsortiumNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentOn Call Employee Liability
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 752 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