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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abax Services Corp. v. Local 78 Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

The defendants, Local 78 Asbestos, Lead and Hazardous Waste Laborers, AFL-CIO and Sal Speziale, appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss certain causes of action. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were not preempted by Federal law, thus affirming the denial of dismissal on that ground. However, the court determined that the third cause of action, based on an alleged Donnelly Act violation, failed to properly identify co-conspirators. Consequently, this specific cause of action was dismissed, with leave for the plaintiff to replead. The order was modified and affirmed.

Tortious Interference with ContractDonnelly ActFederal PreemptionMotion to DismissLeave to RepleadAppellate ReviewLabor LawCivil ProcedurePleading RequirementsCo-Conspirators
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Sica v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a firefighter, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after being injured by inhaling toxic gases while responding to a medical emergency. The application was denied by the respondent, who argued the incident was not an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, despite a Hearing Officer finding otherwise due to unforeseeable circumstances. The court annulled the respondent's determination, finding it lacked substantial evidence. The court distinguished this case from typical firefighter injury cases by highlighting the petitioner's lack of awareness of the chemical hazard in a non-fire emergency situation, concluding that a broad job description alone cannot negate a factual analysis of accident circumstances.

Accidental Disability RetirementFirefighter InjuryToxic Gas ExposureMedical Emergency ResponseUnforeseeable HazardCPLR Article 78 ProceedingRetirement and Social Security LawAnnulment of DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceJob Duties and Risk
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cariffe v. P/R Hoegh Cairn & M/V Cairn

Plaintiff Frank Cariffe, a longshoreman, was injured by inhaling hazardous Metanil Yellow while unloading drums from a container at Brooklyn Pier #9. The defendant, M/V Hoegh Cairn (CAIRN), was aware of the hazardous nature of the cargo but allegedly failed to label the container or provide a dangerous cargo manifest to Cariffe's employer, Universal Maritime Service Stevedoring Company (UMS). CAIRN moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn because Metanil Yellow was not on the official Hazardous Materials Table at the time of the incident, only on an optional list. The court denied CAIRN's motion, asserting that a shipowner retains a common law duty to warn stevedores of known hidden dangers, even if not specifically mandated by federal regulations for all substances. The court determined that whether CAIRN breached its duty of reasonable care and whether UMS had adequate knowledge or could have discovered the hazard by reasonable care are questions for the trier of fact.

Longshoreman InjuryHazardous CargoDuty to WarnShipowner LiabilitySummary Judgment DenialMetanil YellowMaritime LawFederal RegulationsStevedore ResponsibilityHidden Danger
References
10
Case No. 126064
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2019

Leggio v. State of New York

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the State of New York and dismissing a claim filed by inmate Deborah Leggio. Leggio sought damages for injuries sustained after tripping over a tree stump while working at Albion Correctional Facility. The court held that the State's duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace does not extend to hazards inherent in the work being performed, especially when such hazards are open and obvious. As Leggio was tasked with cleaning branches of a felled tree and was aware of the stump, it was deemed an inherent and obvious hazard, negating the State's duty to warn. Consequently, the court found no basis for liability against the State.

Inmate InjuryUnsafe WorkplaceSummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious HazardDuty to WarnCorrectional FacilityAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityTree Stump
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wagner v. Wody

The plaintiff, Russell Wagner, a sanitation worker, was injured by a shard of glass while collecting garbage from the defendants' home. He sued Janice and Jerry Wody for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the hazard was inherent to a sanitation worker's duties. Wagner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that a small piece of glass constitutes ordinary garbage, and the associated hazard is inherent to the sanitation worker's job. A dissenting opinion, however, argued that the reasonableness of disposing of such glass and whether the hazard was "ordinary and obvious" should be a question for a jury, thereby raising a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSanitation Worker InjuryInherent RiskHazardous WasteBroken GlassHomeowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty of Care
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,007 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