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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.

Plaintiff, George D. Enderlin, an employee of Salhen Enterprises, Inc., sustained a back injury while working on an asbestos removal project at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) and contracted by Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc. He twisted his back when a power screw gun slipped while he was on a stepladder, prompting him to grab a pipe to steady himself, though he did not fall. Enderlin and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241, which was initially denied summary judgment by the Supreme Court for the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence that RG&E or Hebert supervised the work for Labor Law § 200 liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (e) regarding stepladder security was not the proximate cause of the accident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Construction accidentLabor LawWorkplace safetySummary judgmentProximate causeStepladderAsbestos removalPersonal injuryAppellate reviewMonroe County
References
13
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of George

Lois E. George appealed by writ of error an order declaring Kandice Lee George the biological child of Myron D. George, Lois's deceased husband. Lois, the sole beneficiary of workers' compensation death benefits, alleged she did not participate in the paternity action and found errors in the record. The trial court's order was based on a petition from Belinda Gail Gammons, the child's mother, alleging Myron was the father. The appellate court concluded that the Texas Family Code does not permit a paternity suit after the putative father's death, distinguishing it from probate code provisions for heirship determination. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, vacated the order, and dismissed the cause.

Paternity actionWrit of errorPosthumous paternitySurvival of actionFamily CodeProbate CodeWorkers' Compensation death benefitsIntestate successionParent-child relationshipAd litem attorney
References
7
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03231 [194 AD3d 1290]
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of George

The case concerns the estate of Mathai Kolath George, where the initial executor, Annie Kolath, engaged in self-dealing by purchasing the Llenroc Mansion through Power Angels, LLC, after terminating the decedent's prior contract. Following her removal, successor executors were appointed, leading to the current administrator, Andrew B. Jarosh, filing a petition seeking judicial settlement and a constructive trust on the property. Surrogate's Court dismissed the constructive trust claim as time-barred, prompting an appeal by Anil Paulose, Elizabeth Paulose, Thomas K. George, and Sharon George. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this dismissal, applying the fiduciary tolling rule, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Estate LawConstructive TrustFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsTolling RuleSelf-DealingExecutors and AdministratorsAppellate ProcedureProperty DisputeReal Estate
References
17
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. 11-22-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

George Francis Sheehan, Jr. v. Pamela Sheehan

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce where Appellant, George Francis Sheehan, Jr., contended the trial court erred by characterizing proceeds from an underinsured-motorist-claim settlement as community property. George was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and received a UIM settlement of $1,250,000 in 2019, with a net amount of $710,724.25 deposited into a joint checking account with Pamela Sheehan before their final separation. George argued the funds were his separate property based on a second settlement agreement executed after the funds were received and disbursed, which allocated proceeds to personal injury damages. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, found the first settlement agreement, executed contemporaneously with the mediation, did not allocate specific damages and that the later agreement did not alter the marital property characterization. The court concluded that George failed to meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence which portion of the settlement proceeds was his separate property, as the first settlement released both community and separate property claims. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

divorcecommunity propertyseparate propertyunderinsured motorist claimsettlement proceedsmarital propertyabuse of discretionclear and convincing evidencepersonal injury damagesTexas Family Code
References
20
Case No. ADJ1303018 (ANA 0382837)
Regular
May 18, 2009

GEORGE T. JOHNSON vs. NEW JERSEY NETS, INA/ACE USA, SEATTLE SUPERSONICS, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling finding California had jurisdiction over Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (Washington L&I) in a claim by former NBA player George T. Johnson. The WCAB determined personal jurisdiction over Washington L&I was not established and that the issue is moot unless Washington L&I was duly authorized to provide workers' compensation insurance in California per Labor Code section 3700. The case is returned to the trial level to determine if the employer, Seattle Supersonics, was lawfully insured or self-insured in California during the alleged injury period, which could result in Seattle being held liable as an uninsured employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWashington State Department of Labor & IndustriesSeattle Supersonicsjurisdictionsubject matter jurisdictionpersonal jurisdictioncumulative trauma injuryprofessional basketball playeruninsured employerduly authorized insurer
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,795 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