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
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldaro v. Float No. 187

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Napoleoni v. Union Hospital of the Bronx

This case involves an appeal concerning discovery motions in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Rosemarie Carreras and Jade Napoleoni against doctors Sushila Gupta, Geraldine Ahneman, and St. Barnabas Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged negligence during prenatal care that led to Jade's severe abnormalities from placental abruption. Defendants sought to compel disclosure of Rosemarie Carreras's substance abuse treatment records, arguing a link between cocaine use during pregnancy and placental abruption. The Supreme Court initially denied extensive discovery, but the appellate court modified this decision. It ordered specific records from Daytop Village and St. Barnabas Hospital to be turned over and allowed further deposition of Carreras regarding her substance abuse during pregnancy, ruling that the plaintiff waived physician-patient privilege and that the public interest in discovery outweighed confidentiality.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery DisputeSubstance Abuse RecordsPrenatal NegligencePlacental AbruptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeConfidentialityAppellate CourtCPLR
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty. v. Douglas

Viola M. Douglas, a lieutenant with the Metro Police Department, filed a discrimination charge and later added retaliation claims after she was denied a promotion and her performance evaluations were lowered following her initial complaint. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Metro) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, contending Douglas failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her retaliation claims and that the alleged actions were not materially adverse. The appellate court denied Douglas's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Douglas had alleged materially adverse employment actions and was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for retaliation claims that stem from an earlier discrimination charge, applying the 'Gupta' exception. Consequently, the trial court's denial of Metro's plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationAdministrative RemediesGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTWCTitle VIIAdverse Employment ActionPerformance Evaluation
References
43
Case No. 2015-05-0341
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2016

Dugger, Paula v. Home Health Care of Middle TN

This expedited hearing addresses Paula Dugger's request for medical and temporary disability benefits after a February 21, 2015, automobile accident. Ms. Dugger, a Licensed Practical Nurse for Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee, was driving to a patient's home when the accident occurred. The central legal issue is whether her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The Court considered the "coming and going rule" and its exceptions, including the special errand exception and the traveling employee exception. The Court found that Ms. Dugger's accident did not fall under any established exceptions and denied her request for benefits.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentComing and Going RuleExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsScope of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentTravel TimeEmployee Vehicle Requirement
References
14
Case No. 533860
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Quinton Waters

Quinton Waters, a station agent, was injured in a bicycle accident while traveling to an overtime assignment. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially deemed the claim compensable under the 'special errand' exception. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, ruling that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment and did not fall under the 'outside employee' exception. The Appellate Division found that the Board failed to address the 'special errand' exception, which was the WCLJ's original basis for awarding benefits. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionOutside Employee ExceptionScope of EmploymentTravel to Work InjuryOvertime AssignmentBicycle AccidentTraumatic Brain InjuryBoard ReversalAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. No. 10-96-049-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1996

Matthew Carroll v. Kermit Black

Matthew Carroll sued several Texas A&M University officials claiming wrongful discharge. The defendants filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting the defense of sovereign immunity, which the trial court granted. Carroll appealed, questioning if the Sabine Pilot exception to the employment-at-will doctrine applies to public employees asserting sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that without legislative consent or a statutory exception, sovereign immunity applies and is not overcome by the Sabine Pilot exception in this context.

wrongful dischargesovereign immunityemployment-at-will doctrineSabine Pilot exceptionpublic employeesplea to jurisdictionTexas A&M Universityappellate reviewgovernmental immunity
References
5
Case No. ADJ10268949
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

ELOY DELA TORRE FERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANT'S LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim due to a post-termination filing defense. The applicant claimed exceptions to this defense, arguing he received pre-termination treatment and that his date of injury, under Labor Code § 5412, occurred after his termination. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to decide the pre-termination treatment exception and remanded the case to clarify the applicant's date of injury under § 5412, as this date's post-termination status would be an exception to the defense. The prior order was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination DefenseCumulative InjuryDate of InjurySection 5412Compensable DisabilityTrier of Fact
References
3
Case No. ADJ10052997
Regular
Mar 06, 2017

JESUS LLAMAS RUIZ vs. FLINTRIDGE RIDING CLUB, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employer's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board finding that the applicant sustained work-related injuries. The employer argued the post-termination defense applied because no pre-termination medical records existed. However, the Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant met an exception to the defense. This exception, under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D), applies when the date of injury, defined by disability and knowledge of employment causation, occurs after the termination date. The Board affirmed the applicant demonstrated this exception, making the lack of pre-termination medical records irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFlintridge Riding ClubState Compensation Insurance FundJesus Llamas RuizPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-Termination DefenseException (D)
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,128 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