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
Nov 13, 1987

People v. Stevenson

The defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted murder in the second degree, one count of assault in the first degree, and two counts of assault in the second degree after repeatedly stabbing his wife and forcing his stepdaughter out a window. On appeal, the court considered whether a lesser included offense charge for reckless assault should have been given, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of intoxication to warrant it. The court also held that the conviction for assault in the second degree under the fourth count of the indictment should be reversed and dismissed as it constituted a lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, and a defendant cannot be simultaneously convicted of both. The judgment was largely affirmed, but modified to dismiss the aforementioned assault charge.

Attempted MurderAssaultLesser Included OffenseIntoxication DefenseCriminal AppealPrior Inconsistent StatementHearsaySpousal AbuseChild EndangermentJury Charge
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. LSI Lighting Services

A machine operator, referred to as claimant, sustained a head injury and became totally disabled after falling from a platform at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, accepting the employer's defense that the injury resulted solely from intoxication. Evidence included a 0.218% blood alcohol content and medical records indicating alcohol abuse. The Board concluded that claimant's fall was due to intoxication, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption that the injury was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that intoxication was the sole cause of the claimant's injury.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentStatutory Presumption RebuttalSole Cause of InjuryAppellate Review StandardSubstantial EvidenceMedical Records EvidenceAlcoholism DiagnosisWorkplace Fall
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Hunt v. State

The claimant, arrested for grand larceny in 1998, was unable to post bail and was sexually assaulted by another inmate while in the Manhattan Detention Center. Despite a court directive for protective custody on September 18, 1998, state court officers failed to properly record this order on the securing order. Consequently, the claimant was returned to general population and assaulted again on September 21. The Court of Claims initially dismissed the claimant's action for damages against the State. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the court officers' failure to record the protective custody order was a breach of a ministerial duty, thereby establishing state liability. The case has been remanded for a trial to determine the damages for the September 21 assault.

Inmate AssaultProtective CustodyMinisterial NegligenceState LiabilityCourt Officer DutySecuring OrderDamages RemandAppellate ReversalCorrectional Facility NegligencePrisoner Safety
References
7
Case No. 2014-06-0053
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Bates, Pamela v. Command Center, Inc.

Pamela Bates, an employee, alleged injuries from an assault by an intoxicated co-worker at Command Center, Inc. The employer denied benefits, asserting the assault was not work-related. The trial court, following an expedited hearing, denied Bates's request for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding the assault was private and lacked a work connection. Bates appealed this interlocutory order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the appeal as untimely, noting the notice of appeal was filed on March 16, 2015, beyond the statutory deadline of March 10, 2015, for the order issued on February 27, 2015. The Board emphasized that timely filing of an appeal notice is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement in civil and workers' compensation cases. The case is remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

Assault at WorkUntimely AppealInterlocutory OrderJurisdictional DefectPro Se LitigantExpedited HearingDenial of Medical BenefitsDenial of Temporary Disability BenefitsStatutory DeadlineRemand
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewter v. O'Connor Management Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of O’Connor Management, Inc., d/b/a Rivergate Mall, the defendant, in a lawsuit filed by Norma Jean Lewter, an employee of a tenant. Lewter was criminally assaulted in the mall's parking lot. The central issue revolves around whether the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to provide adequate security and whether the assault was foreseeable given prior incidents. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that under Cornpropst v. Sloan, there must be actual notice of 'imminent probability of the act' rather than just knowledge of past similar acts, and found no special relationship between the mall and the plaintiff.

Shopping Mall LiabilityPremises LiabilityCriminal AttackSecurity DutyForeseeabilitySummary Judgment AppealTennessee LawInvitee ProtectionSpecial Relationship DoctrineWorkers' Compensation Intervention
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 1986

Shannon v. State of New York Department of Correctional Services

Petitioner, a correction officer, faced disciplinary charges for misconduct including assault, intoxication, and absenteeism. A settlement agreement with the Department of Correctional Services allowed him to retain his job but subjected him to termination without appeal for similar future misconduct. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated off duty, which the Department deemed a violation of the settlement. His employment was terminated, leading him to file a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, a decision which the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the DWI arrest constituted a violation of the settlement agreement, providing a valid basis for termination and demonstrating no bad faith on the Department's part.

Correction OfficerDisciplinary ActionSettlement AgreementDriving While IntoxicatedTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewEmployee MisconductBad FaithCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dailing v. State

Appellant Amanda Dailing challenged her conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing that the trial court, Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 8, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. She contended that statutes granting jurisdiction to statutory county courts over misdemeanor DWI cases violated the Texas Constitution or, alternatively, that these courts lacked original jurisdiction. The appellate court unanimously concluded that the Texas Constitution authorized the Legislature to grant such jurisdiction and that the Legislature properly exercised this authority. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction. Additionally, a majority of the panel affirmed the assessment of a $15 court cost related to visual recording after arrest, despite the Chief Justice's dissent on this issue. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Driving While IntoxicatedDWIJurisdictionStatutory County CourtsConstitutional County CourtsCriminal ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas ConstitutionMisdemeanorAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1993

Gagliardi v. Trapp

The plaintiff, a correction officer, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in her action for assault and negligence. She alleged physical and mental harm after being punched by a fellow correction officer, Darrell Harris, and claimed her employers, New York City Department of Correction and the City of New York, attempted to conceal the incident and discriminated against her. The Supreme Court correctly determined that her negligence claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law as she had already received benefits, and her allegations did not meet the high standard for an intentional tort to circumvent the exclusivity provision. Furthermore, her discrimination claims under Executive Law § 296 were found to be conclusory and unsupported.

AssaultNegligenceWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscriminationExclusive RemedyAppellate DecisionCorrection OfficerRikers IslandEmployers' Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prave v. State

The State of New York appealed 17 separate orders from the Court of Claims that denied its motion for summary judgment in actions alleging intentional assault stemming from the Attica uprising. The State contended that the claimants' acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred their intentional tort claims, constituting an election of remedies. Claimants argued they never applied for benefits and should not be bound by such an election. The Appellate Division held that accepting benefits, even if initiated by the employer, generally precludes a subsequent tort action if the Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable. To pursue their tort claims, claimants must first seek to rescind the Board's prior determination that their injuries were accidental. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court's orders, granted summary judgment to the State, and dismissed the claims without prejudice for claimants to seek a redetermination from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Attica UprisingWorkers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral AttackWorkers' Compensation BoardRescission of AwardElection of RemediesCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvamoser v. Pratt Institute

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Pratt Institute and 205 Ashland Associates, for personal injuries resulting from a criminal assault. The plaintiff was robbed on a public street near her residence, owned by 205 Ashland Associates and leased by Pratt Institute, then forced into her apartment and to a bank. She alleged negligence by the defendants for a defective or open front door, contending they failed to provide adequate security. The Supreme Court found the defendants' actions were not a substantial cause of the injury, as the criminal act originated off-premises and the plaintiff would have been compelled into her apartment regardless of the door's security. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the causal connection between any negligence and the criminal act was too attenuated as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryCriminal AssaultNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCausationProximate CauseLandlord LiabilityAppellate ReviewSecurity Measures
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 899 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