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
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1981

Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against his supervisor, Manobianco, and employer, Maimonides Medical Center, following an alleged defamatory statement. Defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed several affirmative defenses, including Workers' Compensation and absolute privilege. The appellate court reversed the order in part, striking the defense of qualified privilege for specific causes of action and the Workers' Compensation defense where employer participation in intentional torts was alleged. However, the Workers' Compensation defense was upheld for claims based on respondeat superior and those where the injury was deemed compensable, even partially. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law abrogates common-law remedies for such injuries, leaving recourse to the Legislature for perceived harsh outcomes.

DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeRespondeat SuperiorCoemployee ImmunityEmployer LiabilityCommon Law Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1988

Brophy v. County of Putnam

The plaintiff, a former Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging the county opposed his efforts to obtain workers' compensation benefits and wrongfully terminated his employment. His motion for partial summary judgment, based on General Municipal Law § 207-c, was denied by the Supreme Court due to an unjustified five-year delay in asserting the statutory claim, which would prejudice the county. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the motion was affirmed on appeal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's argument against the "theory-of-pleadings doctrine" and emphasizing the lengthy and unexplained delay in asserting the claim after the law's amendment.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPartial Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisability PensionEmployment TerminationProcedural DelayStatutory ClaimAppellate ReviewAffirmationGeneral Municipal Law
References
0
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation

Residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, sued Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil Corp. for MTBE contamination in their private wells. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to fear of cancer from exposure. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted summary judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding no intent to cause such distress. However, it denied summary judgment for negligent infliction of emotional distress, citing sufficient evidence of exposure and potential subcellular damage, and ordered plaintiffs to undergo mental examinations.

MTBE contaminationGasoline leaksGroundwater contaminationEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressIntentional infliction of emotional distressSummary judgmentToxic tortFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAlister v. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Rita McAlister appealed from a summary judgment in favor of Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Larry L. Oefinger after her employment was terminated. McAlister had filed suit alleging breach of contract, negligent or reckless infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court struck the negligent or reckless infliction of emotional distress claim via special exception and granted summary judgment on the remaining claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Workers' Compensation Act provided an exclusive remedy for the emotional distress claim, making the pleading defect incurable. Regarding the breach of contract claim, the court found that the employee handbook did not contractually modify the at-will employment relationship, thus affirming the summary judgment. Lastly, the appellate court upheld the summary judgment on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, concluding that the defendants' conduct was not extreme or outrageous and the plaintiff's emotional distress was not severe.

Employment LawSummary JudgmentSpecial ExceptionsEmotional DistressBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAppellate ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 1996

Dade v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

This case concerns a motion for summary judgment filed by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWBT) against its former employee, Dade. Dade alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SWBT on the ADA claims due to Dade's failure to timely file suit after receiving her right-to-sue letters and untimely filing of subsequent EEOC charges. The claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress were also dismissed, as Texas law does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress, and SWBT's conduct was not deemed extreme and outrageous for intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court denied summary judgment on Dade's Texas Labor Code § 451.001 claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and termination, supported by an arbitrator's findings.

Americans with Disabilities ActRetaliatory DischargeEmotional DistressSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor LawEEOCFederal Civil ProcedureDisability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Fidelity Investments

Plaintiff Darnell Cook sued his employer, Fidelity Investments, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision following a demotion. Fidelity moved for partial dismissal of the emotional distress claim and for partial summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim. The Court granted Fidelity’s motion to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, ruling that the alleged conduct did not meet the standard for extreme and outrageous behavior. The Court also granted Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim, finding it barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision and preempted by the TCHRA. Consequently, both of Darnell Cook’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision were dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIITexas Commission on Human Rights ActIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent SupervisionTexas Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentDismissal with PrejudiceEmployment Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Sonic Drive-In of Angleton, Inc.

Majorie Marie Hall, an employee of Sonic Drive-In, sued Sonic and its manager, Michael Cantrell, for premises liability, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hall was injured when she cut her hand on a freezer cover left on the floor. Later, Cantrell allegedly assaulted her by grabbing her wrist to make her hold a french-fry scooper. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sonic and Cantrell on all claims. Hall appealed, arguing that material fact issues existed for her premises liability claim, the assault claim was improperly dismissed based on a faulty interpretation of intent, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not even addressed in the summary judgment motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding that Hall raised genuine issues of material fact for premises liability, that an 'intent to injure' is not the only element for assault, and that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not properly addressed by the summary judgment motion.

Premises LiabilityAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyForeseeabilityCause-in-FactActual Knowledge
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Higgins v. Metro-North Railroad

Plaintiff Gail Higgins sued Metro-North Railroad Company under FELA, alleging sexual harassment by a co-worker, Militano, which she claimed caused her latent multiple sclerosis to become symptomatic. She asserted claims of negligent failure to provide a safe workplace, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Higgins did not suffer a "physical impact" as required for negligent infliction of emotional distress under FELA's "zone of danger" test, as she was not physically injured nor in apprehension of physical harm. Furthermore, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress failed because Metro-North could not be held vicariously liable for Militano's actions, as his misconduct was for personal motives. There was also insufficient evidence that Metro-North knew of Militano's propensity for sexual harassment to support a negligent supervision claim.

Federal Employers' Liability ActSexual Harassment ClaimsNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment MotionZone of Danger TestPhysical Impact RequirementLatent Multiple SclerosisEmployer Vicarious LiabilityNegligent Supervision
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,803 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