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

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04268
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund

This case involves an appeal by State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. against a judgment that denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had found State Farm liable for workers' compensation benefits paid by the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund to an injured driver. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, applying closer judicial scrutiny due to the statutory nature of the arbitration, affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the arbitrator's determination had sufficient evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration LawAppellate PracticeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationJudicial Review of ArbitrationStatutory MandateAutomobile InsuranceDenial of PetitionConfirmation of AwardDamages Recovery
References
8
Case No. ADJ1778830 (STK 0204284)
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

JOSE DAVILLA vs. GOLDEN STATE COLLISION CENTERS, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

This case concerns Jose Davila's petition for reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his claim for increased benefits under Labor Code section 132a. Davila argued his employer, Golden State Collision Centers, improperly terminated him due to his work-related injury. The WCJ found Davila failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his termination was for failing to provide requested FMLA paperwork, a policy applied uniformly to all employees regardless of injury status. Furthermore, the employer credibly testified they were unaware of the work-related injury until after Davila's termination. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibilityAssistant PainterDate of InjuryFMLA paperworkDiscriminationDetrimental Consequence
References
1
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04119 [141 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2016

Costa v. State of New York

Claimant Modesto Costa, a construction worker, sustained injuries at Pier 40 due to a collapsing metal beam. Pier 40 is owned by the State of New York but managed by the Hudson River Park Trust. After an initial claim against New York City was dismissed, Costa sought to file a late notice of claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims denied this motion, asserting the State was not a proper party due to the legislative transfer of legal obligations to the Trust under the Hudson River Park Act. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, holding that despite retaining record title, the State was not an "owner" for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) liability purposes. The court reasoned that the Hudson River Park Act, particularly the clause stating the Trust "shall succeed to all...other legal obligations," demonstrated legislative intent to exempt the State from such liability. This intent was further supported by a 2013 amendment requiring the State to indemnify the Trust, indicating that the original Act intended the Trust to bear sole legal responsibility for injuries in the Park. Therefore, the State was not a proper party to the action.

Labor Law liabilityOwner liabilityAbsolute liabilityPublic benefit corporationHudson River Park ActStatutory interpretationLate notice of claimProperty ownershipLessees liabilityGovernmental immunity
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02493 [193 AD3d 616]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2021

Granite State Ins. Co. v. Moklam Enters., Inc.

Granite State Insurance Company appealed orders denying its motions for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Daffodil General Contracting Inc. for common-law contribution or indemnification claims in two personal injury actions. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Granite State's motions. The court found that Granite State made a prima facie showing that the alleged injuries did not constitute "grave injuries" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Since the defendants provided no evidence to the contrary, Granite State was relieved of its obligation to defend or indemnify the employer for the underlying common-law claims.

Summary JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryCommon-Law ContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal Injury Actions
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1992

Lowe v. State

Claimant Ronald Lowe, an inmate, sustained severe injuries at a correctional facility's sawmill due to the State's failure to provide adequate safety measures. He and his wife filed claims, with the Court of Claims finding the State 100% at fault and awarding damages. On appeal, the State argued claimant's negligence and claimants sought increased compensation. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, determining the claimant was not contributorily negligent given the hazardous work conditions and the inadequacy of tools provided. The court also found the damages awarded were appropriate, citing the claimant's prior work history and lack of substantial impact on his earning capacity due to the injury.

Inmate injuryCorrectional facility accidentSawmill accidentWorkplace safetyNegligence of StateDamages assessmentLost earningsComparative negligenceOSHA violationsAppellate review
References
10
Case No. 121778, 121782
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2018

Jimerson v. State of New York

Claimants, Joshua A. Jimerson (as Administrator of Patricia A. John's Estate) and Kenneth Vanaernam, sought damages for wrongful death and injuries after falling through a hole on the Red House Bridge (RHB). The bridge, built by the State of New York in 1930, is located within the sovereign land of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Despite a history of confusion regarding maintenance responsibility, a 1976 Memorandum of Understanding and a 2007 Project Specific Agreement had indicated the State's involvement. The Court of Claims initially denied the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the State's duty to maintain the bridge. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Highway Law § 53 unambiguously obligates the State to maintain highways and bridges it constructed on Indian reservation land, thereby establishing the State's statutory duty.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjuryHighway MaintenanceBridge CollapseState ResponsibilityStatutory DutySummary JudgmentIndian ReservationNew York State Department of TransportationSeneca Nation of Indians
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. State

Jane Doe, a registered nurse, contracted HIV after being stuck by a contaminated needle while restraining an agitated AIDS patient at Faxton Hospital. Correction officers present refused to assist the hospital staff. Jane Doe and her husband, Joseph Doe, sued the State for negligence. The Court of Claims found the State negligent and awarded significant damages, including for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium. On appeal, the claimants challenged the limitation of Jane Doe's future economic loss to her post-injury life expectancy and the constitutionality of CPLR article 50-B. The State cross-appealed the damages. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that future economic loss should be based on pre-injury life expectancy, and affirmed the constitutionality of CPLR article 50-B and the damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of consortium.

negligenceHIV exposureAIDS diagnosispersonal injury damagesfuture lost wagespain and suffering compensationloss of consortiumCPLR Article 50-Bstructured judgmentsconstitutional challenge
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Champagne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Selma Champagne appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting cross-motions by State Farm and John L. Homan. The case originated from a 1987 motor vehicle accident where Homan allegedly struck Samuel Champagne, who later settled with State Farm for the policy limit. Selma, Samuel's wife, then sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to defend and indemnify Homan in her separate suit for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants. The appellate court modified the order, denying Homan's cross-motion, ruling that Selma's loss of consortium claim remained viable despite her husband's settlement as she was not a party to it. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for State Farm, holding that State Farm had fulfilled its policy obligations by paying the "per person" bodily injury limit to Samuel, as loss of consortium damages are derivative and do not constitute a separate "bodily injury" under the insurance policy.

Loss of ConsortiumMotor Vehicle AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy LimitsBodily InjuryDerivative ClaimSettlementAppellate ReviewPolicy Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 19,408 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