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. 14-CV-227
Regular Panel Decision

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc.

Plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo filed an action against PepsiCo and others, alleging fraudulent commandeering of his intellectual property. He later added ScentSational Technologies LLC and Steven M. Landau as defendants. This Opinion & Order addresses Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene in ScentSational's pending lawsuit against PepsiCo and/or to consolidate his action with the ScentSational Suit. The Court denied the Motion to Intervene due to untimeliness, as Plaintiff had ample notice but delayed filing for 16 to 19 months. Furthermore, the Court denied the Motion to Consolidate, citing that the two actions are at disparate stages of litigation (Plaintiff's case dismissed, ScentSational's in discovery), which would not promote judicial economy and would cause prejudice through delay and increased expense.

InterventionConsolidationTimelinessIntellectual PropertyTrade SecretsMotion PracticeJudicial EconomyPro SeDismissalFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosemond v. Harshaw Chemical Co.

The plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Harshaw Chemical Company and Bartholomew Company, Inc. in an action to recover damages for wrongful death. The decedent, an employee of Astro-Electro, Inc., died after falling into a vat of corrosive acid while removing fallen parts, alleging defendants' negligent design of a horizontal drive system caused the parts to fall. The defendants argued their negligence was not a proximate cause, as parts frequently fell, and Astro's failure to provide safety precautions constituted an intervening cause. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the accident would have occurred regardless of the defendants' alleged negligence and that Astro's egregious negligence served as an intervening cause, thereby absolving the defendants of liability.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentProximate CauseIntervening CauseNegligenceProduct LiabilityWorkplace AccidentAppellate ReviewForeseeabilityCausation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02624 [227 AD3d 1516]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2024

Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal by Hedman Resources Limited against a judgment awarding damages to Terri Viglietta for injuries sustained by Benedict Viglietta due to asbestos exposure. The appeal contested the Supreme Court's decision to quash a subpoena served on Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), the decedent's employer's predecessor-in-interest. Hedman sought OCC's testimony regarding asbestos exposure but the subpoena was quashed as OCC was a non-party and Hedman could not apportion liability to it. Additionally, Hedman challenged the denial of a jury instruction that OCC's failure to warn employees could be an intervening cause. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that quashing the subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion and that the employer's alleged failure to warn did not constitute an intervening cause to relieve Hedman of negligence.

Asbestos ExposureSubpoenaQuash SubpoenaNonparty WitnessIntervening CauseNegligenceJury InstructionAppellate ReviewDamages AwardDiscovery Matters
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hain v. Jamison

This case addresses whether Drumm Family Farm, Inc.'s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of a decedent's death. The decedent was struck and killed by a vehicle while attempting to assist a calf that had escaped from the Farm and wandered into a rural roadway. The Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the decedent's intervening act of entering the roadway and the other driver's negligence were the sole proximate causes. While the Appellate Division granted the Farm's motion, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that proximate cause remains a question for the factfinder. The Court reasoned that the risk created by the Farm's negligence (a wandering calf causing a collision) was precisely the risk that materialized, and the decedent's actions could be considered a foreseeable consequence.

Proximate CauseNegligenceSummary JudgmentIntervening ActForeseeabilityFarm Animal LiabilityTraffic AccidentNew York Court of AppealsTort LawCausation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brinkerhoff v. County of St. Lawrence

The plaintiff, widow of New York State Trooper David Brinkerhoff, filed a wrongful death action against the St. Lawrence County Probation Department and its employees after Brinkerhoff was fatally shot while apprehending a fugitive. The plaintiff asserted claims under General Obligations Law § 11-106 and General Municipal Law § 205-e. The defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that no wrongful death cause of action exists under GOL § 11-106 and that the causal link for GML § 205-e was broken by the fugitive's intervening criminal acts. The court found that GOL § 11-106 does not create a wrongful death cause of action, only a survival claim for pain and suffering. Regarding GML § 205-e, the court determined that the defendants' delay in processing an arrest warrant was not an "indirect cause" of Brinkerhoff's death, as the immediate cause was the fugitive's act of shooting a different trooper, which led to Brinkerhoff's deployment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.

Wrongful DeathPolice Officer InjuryFirefighter's RuleGeneral Obligations Law § 11-106General Municipal Law § 205-eProbation ViolationCausationMotion to DismissIntervening Superseding ActSurvival Claim
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tummino v. Hamburg

Concerned Women for America, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, and Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International (intervenors) sought to intervene in a case to appeal a judgment that ordered the FDA to allow Plan B to be marketed over-the-counter to 17-year-olds. They also requested an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The District Court denied their motions, finding that the intervenors lacked standing to intervene due to their failure to demonstrate a concrete injury-in-fact regarding informational, procedural, or pharmacists' alleged harms, and could not establish third-party standing. Furthermore, the court ruled that the motion to intervene was untimely, as the intervenors knew of their interest well before filing their motion. Finally, the motion for an extension of time to appeal was also denied, as the intervenors did not establish "excusable neglect or good cause" for their delay in filing, with their reason of difficulty finding local counsel being deemed insufficient.

InterventionStandingTimelinessAppealEmergency ContraceptivesPlan BFDAPharmaceutical RegulationJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure Act
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 4,478 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