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. 22-0053
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2024

Hnmc, Inc. v. Francis S. Chan, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Leny Rey Chan, Jonathan Chan, and Justin Chan

This personal injury case concerns whether a property owner, HNMC, Inc., has a duty to make an adjoining public roadway safe from, or otherwise warn of, careless third-party drivers. A nurse employed by HNMC was struck and killed by a driver while crossing a public street next to the hospital. The Supreme Court of Texas held that while HNMC had a limited duty as a premises occupier based on its exercise of control over certain parts of the adjoining public right-of-way (concrete pad, driveway, signs), there was no evidence that any dangerous condition HNMC controlled in the right-of-way proximately caused the nurse’s harm. The Court emphasized that the hazard faced was an open and obvious careless driver, for which HNMC was not responsible in areas it did not control. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityDuty of CarePublic Roadway SafetyThird-Party NegligenceProximate CauseNegligent UndertakingOpen and Obvious DangerProperty Owner LiabilityTexas Supreme Court
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citibank v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Citibank initiated a proceeding to overturn an order from the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights. This order had found Citibank guilty of age discrimination against its employee, Catherine S. Hanna, and awarded her compensatory damages and back pay. Hanna was dismissed from Citibank after 36 years of employment for alleged insubordination, which she contested, citing a conflict with personal appointments. The court reviewed the evidence, finding that the Commissioner's determination of age discrimination lacked substantial evidentiary support. The court concluded that Hanna failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and Citibank's stated reason for termination was not a mere pretext for discriminatory actions, thus granting Citibank's petition.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationInsubordinationPrima Facie CasePretextSubstantial EvidenceJudicial ReviewHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEmployer-Employee Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2003

Tempio v. City of Buffalo

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the City of Buffalo Fire Department, initiated a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a and respondeat superior. The plaintiff claimed injuries due to a fellow employee's negligence in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that the plaintiff falls within the class of persons covered by section 205-a, as it applies to 'any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured... while in the discharge or performance... of any duty.' Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude this action, citing that section 205-a grants recovery rights 'in addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law.'

Personal InjuryMunicipal LawRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationVehicle and Traffic LawEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFire Department
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2000

Claim of Martin v. Levest Electric Corp.

The claimant, having suffered work-related injuries, pursued both workers' compensation benefits and a third-party personal injury action, which was subsequently settled. A contention arose concerning the workers' compensation carrier's entitlement to offset future benefits against the net settlement proceeds, as outlined in Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the carrier had correctly preserved its right to this offset. On appeal, the claimant argued that the carrier had consented to the settlement, thereby waiving its offset right, and that a court possessed the authority to waive such a right. The appellate court upheld the Board's finding, concluding that there was no substantial evidence of carrier consent to the settlement, and reaffirmed that a court cannot override a carrier's explicit reservation of its offset rights.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementOffset RightsCarrier ConsentFuture BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionBoard RulingReservation of Rights
References
4
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,397 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