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
Jan 08, 1990

Hamrick v. City of Eustace

Billy Don Hamrick sued several defendants for an unlawful arrest and car search, stemming from a warrant based on misrepresentations by Officer Dewayne Mixon. Mixon and Officer Jim Lane arrested Hamrick, who was never prosecuted. Hamrick alleged constitutional rights violations, leading to a jury verdict against Mixon, Lane, and Chief James H. Cook. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Mixon and Lane, upholding jury damage awards of $30,000 and $5,000, respectively. However, the motion was granted for Chief Cook due to insufficient evidence of his liability. The court also denied the defendants' alternative motion for a new trial.

Civil Rights ViolationUnlawful ArrestUnlawful Search and SeizureFourth AmendmentQualified ImmunityJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictPolice MisconductProbable CauseFalse ArrestDue Process
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Jose Madeira at a construction site. The plaintiff sued Affordable Housing, the site owner, and Mountain Developers, the general contractor, under New York Labor Law § 240(1) (Scaffold Law). A jury in Phase I found the defendants liable and awarded Jose Madeira $638,671.63. In Phase II, the jury determined that the third-party defendant, Cleidson Silva d/b/a C & L Construction (plaintiff's employer), was 82% liable for the accident, while Mountain and Affordable were each 9% liable based on an indemnification agreement. The court addresses post-trial motions from both third-party defendants (Silva) for a new trial and third-party plaintiffs (Affordable and Mountain) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which are denied. Key issues included the plaintiff's right to lost earnings as an undocumented worker, the jury's apportionment of fault, and the preclusion of proof regarding lack of insurance.

Scaffold LawLabor Law § 240(1)Indemnification AgreementThird-Party ActionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictNew Trial MotionUndocumented Worker RightsLost EarningsImmigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Apportionment of Fault
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 1968

Weeks v. Beardsley

Raymond H. Weeks, an employee of joint venture contractors, died on October 30, 1964, after being struck by an automobile operated by Beverly J. Beardsley. The plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the defendants, which resulted from a jury verdict of no cause of action, and an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside that verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury's findings regarding the decedent's contributory negligence and the defendant operator's freedom from negligence were supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, and therefore, the verdict was not palpably wrong.

Wrongful DeathAutomobile AccidentContributory NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyNegligenceMotion to Set Aside VerdictTrial TermAffirmed Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2003

Baez v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered a judgment on or about July 16, 2003, upholding a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $380,000 for future pain and suffering. This judgment also brought up for review an order from November 26, 2002, which denied the defendants' motion to deem the damages verdict excessive. The plaintiff, a 56-year-old home-health-aide, sustained a severe comminuted midshaft humeral fracture in her right arm, requiring multiple surgeries including rod and plate placements, and extensive physical therapy. Despite healing, she was left with limited forearm rotation, numbness, hand weakness, and three large keloid scars. The court unanimously affirmed the damages awards, finding them to be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, referencing CPLR 5501 [c] and Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp.

Humeral fracturePain and sufferingDamages awardJury verdictAppellate affirmationSurgical interventionPhysical therapyKeloid scarsLimited range of motionMedical hardware
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Albee

Plaintiff Gary D. Carpenter, a blacktop paver, sustained serious injuries when he was struck and dragged by a dump truck driven by defendant Bruce W. Albee while working on Interstate Route 88. Carpenter and his wife commenced a personal injury action against Albee and his employer. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs' motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial were denied. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that there was conflicting evidence that the jury could fairly interpret in the defendant's favor, and affirmed the lower court's judgment and order.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceAutomobile AccidentWorkplace AccidentConflicting TestimonyCredibility IssuesAffirmed Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.

Martha Sanchez sued Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and fraud after an on-the-job injury led to her not being recalled to work. The trial court granted summary judgment against her retaliatory discharge claim and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a fraud claim where the jury had awarded damages. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, citing a factual dispute over Sanchez's termination date, which impacted the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upholding the jury's findings of fraud, lost wages, mental anguish, and exemplary damages, remanding the retaliatory discharge claim and rendering judgment for Sanchez on the fraud claim.

Wrongful DischargeBreach of ContractFraudSummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Preemption
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 1988

Petterson v. Museum Tower Corp.

Mr. Martin Petterson, a machinist mover, was severely injured in a construction accident on August 24, 1981, at the Museum Tower construction site when he fell through an uncovered opening. He subsequently sued the owner, Museum Tower Corp., and the general contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The trial court initially granted Petterson a directed verdict on liability. However, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed this judgment, vacated the directed verdict, denied Petterson's motion, and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of liability. The reversal was based on the existence of a triable issue of fact concerning whether a protective barricade was in place at the time of the accident, despite a dissenting opinion advocating for the affirmation of the directed verdict.

Construction AccidentLabor LawDirected VerdictLiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall From HeightBuilding ErectionGeneral ContractorProperty OwnerSubcontractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Anderson v. Grimes

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries and appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 5, 1999. This judgment dismissed the complaint following a jury verdict that found the defendant not at fault in the accident. The plaintiff's posttrial motion, made pursuant to CPLR 4404, to set aside the verdict and obtain a new trial was denied. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, reiterating that a jury's determination should only be set aside if it could not be reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence. Furthermore, the court emphasized the significant deference due to a jury's assessment of credibility issues, concluding that the verdict was indeed based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictPosttrial MotionCPLR 4404AppealJudgment AffirmedEvidence SufficiencyCredibility AssessmentDismissal of ComplaintSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. CA 12-02160
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

SHUMWAY, DAVID v. KELLEY, JUSTIN

Plaintiffs David and Cathy Shumway appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Genesee County, which dismissed their complaint following a jury verdict. The action sought damages for injuries sustained by David Shumway at work due to a collision with his coworker, Justin Kelley. The jury concluded that Kelley was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, which rendered workers' compensation the plaintiffs' sole remedy. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, rejecting the plaintiffs' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. Additionally, the court found no error in the jury instructions and upheld the rejection of juror affidavits used to impeach the verdict.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentJury VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictWeight of EvidenceJury InstructionsJuror AffidavitsImpeaching VerdictCoworker InjuryNew York State Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 17,327 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