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

Gross v. Nashville Gas Co.

Plaintiffs John M. Gross and Wayne Adair, employees of South Central Bell Telephone Company, sustained severe burns when a fire erupted in a manhole they were working in. They alleged the fire was caused by leaking natural gas from lines maintained by the defendant, Nashville Gas Company, claiming negligence and strict liability. The trial in Davidson County, Tennessee, in January 1979, resulted in a jury finding both parties negligent and a verdict in favor of Nashville Gas Company, leading to the dismissal of the case. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions on remote contributory negligence, strict liability, duty of care, gross negligence, punitive damages, and urging the judicial adoption of comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and declined to judicially adopt comparative negligence, suggesting it is a legislative matter. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or strict liability against the gas company.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceGas LeakManhole FireWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsStrict Liability
References
26
Case No. 2020-06-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

De Rosa, Debra v. I & MJ Gross Co.

Debra De Rosa, an employee of I & MJ Gross Co., injured her wrist and subsequently sought additional treatment with a new doctor. She contended that the carrier, Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., failed to offer a panel of physicians or inform her of her right to choose from a list of three doctors. However, I & MJ Gross Co. denied these allegations, asserting that it had twice fulfilled its statutory obligation to offer a physician panel. The Court found the employer's testimony credible regarding the panel offer and noted that Ms. De Rosa accepted treatment from Dr. John Weaver. Dr. Weaver ultimately placed her at maximum medical improvement and stated no further treatment was necessary, leading the Court to deny Ms. De Rosa’s request for additional medical care.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician PanelCredibility DeterminationWrist InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory ObligationEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1979

Gross Veneer Co. v. American Mutual Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term in St. Lawrence County, which granted plaintiff, Gross Veneer Company, Inc., partial summary judgment. The dispute arose from a manufacturer’s blanket crime policy issued by defendant, American Mutual Insurance Companies, insuring against employee dishonesty. Plaintiff sought to recover funds embezzled by Chester Shockley, whom it alleged was an employee. The central issue was whether Shockley met the policy’s three-pronged definition of an 'employee,' which required compensation by the insured, the insured's right to govern and direct, and not being a broker or agent. The appellate court found that Special Term improperly relied on unsupported explanations regarding Shockley's compensation by Litchfield Park Corporation and failed to address whether this arrangement affected plaintiff's right to control Shockley or if Shockley acted as plaintiff's agent. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

employee dishonestyinsurance policysummary judgmentcontract interpretationemployment definitionappellate reviewcompensationright to controlcorporate relationsembezzlement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Liz Gross sued her employer, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). NBC moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, leading to the dismissal of Gross's claims. The court found many of Gross's claims to be time-barred, rejecting the application of the "continuing violation doctrine." For the timely claims, Gross failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, as she could not provide evidence of similarly situated male comparators for pay or demonstrate an adverse employment action or discriminatory animus. NBC successfully articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, which Gross did not prove to be pretextual.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawPay DisparityTimeliness of ClaimsContinuing Violation DoctrinePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
48
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Troutt v. Carl K. Wilson Co.

The appellant, Mrs. Troutt, filed a claim for unemployment compensation which was initially approved but later reversed by the Board of Review, who found her guilty of simple misconduct. The Chancery Court of Shelby County affirmed this decision, leading to an appeal before the Tennessee Supreme Court. The core issue involved the interpretation of T.C.A. sec. 50-1324, subd. B., particularly the distinction between "simple misconduct" and "gross misconduct," a differentiation unique to Tennessee law. The Court, noting the lack of direct authority defining simple misconduct, determined it must be defined on a case-by-case basis. Based on testimony from her manager and supervisors, detailing Mrs. Troutt's problematic conduct including interrupting sales, getting angry, and repeatedly refusing instructions, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of simple misconduct, thereby upholding the lower court's judgment.

Unemployment CompensationMisconductSimple MisconductGross MisconductStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewStandard of ReviewEmployment LawTennessee LawEmployee Discharge
References
2
Case No. ADJ12896538
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

DEBORAH GROSS vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, SEDGWICK

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Deborah Gross's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The WCJ found Gross failed to provide evidence or arguments demonstrating why the statute of limitations should not apply to her cumulative trauma claim filed over eight years after the alleged injury. Gross's submitted exhibits and cited case law were found to be either irrelevant, factually distinguishable, or unsupported by the record. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and incorporated it into their decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedStatute of LimitationsPro PerCumulative InjuryDate of InjuryAlleged InjuriesMedical TreatmentCase Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc.

This case involves an employment contract dispute over severance pay between employee Eric Teter and his former employer, Republic Parking System, Inc. (RPS). Teter was involuntarily terminated, and RPS subsequently ceased severance payments, citing gross misconduct (viewing pornography on a work computer). The trial court and Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Teter, requiring RPS to prove misconduct by 'clear and convincing' evidence. The Supreme Court of Tennessee partially reversed this, establishing that a 'preponderance of the evidence' is the correct standard for after-acquired evidence of misconduct in breach of contract actions. The Supreme Court affirmed that Teter's termination was involuntary, that the employment protection plan's payment schedule was incorporated into the contract, and that the severance provisions were not an illegal penalty. However, it remanded the case for trial due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether RPS would have immediately fired Teter had the misconduct been known earlier, applying the newly established preponderance standard.

Employment ContractSeverance PayBreach of ContractAfter-acquired EvidenceEmployee MisconductPornographyBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceClear and Convincing EvidenceWrongful Termination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,374 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