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

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff was fired from Manhattan Woods Golf Club after taking a day off for his dying mother's emergency brain surgery. He sued for FMLA violation and breach of contract. A jury awarded him damages for both claims. Defendants subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that he qualified for FMLA leave. The court granted the defendants' motion regarding the FMLA claim (Count I), finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was 'needed to care for' his mother as per FMLA regulations, and dismissed the claim. The motion for reduction of FMLA damages became moot. However, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim (Count II), upholding the jury's finding that the employer lacked 'reasonable cause' to terminate the plaintiff's employment.

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2011

Alfonso v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old office worker, sustained a comminuted intraarticular fracture of the distal radial metaphysis of her right wrist and a cervical herniated disc after being struck by a truck owned by the Transit Authority. After a failed closed reduction, she underwent open reduction surgery with internal fixation and extensive physical therapy, resulting in reduced range of motion, continued pain, and progressive arthritis. A jury awarded the plaintiff $450,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed this judgment, determining that the awards did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

personal injurymotor vehicle accidentfracturewrist injuryneck injuryshoulder injurypain and sufferingjury verdictaffirmationnegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fresco v. 157 East 72nd Street Condominium

A laborer sustained an eye injury on a construction site. The jury initially found the general contractor liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 241 (6), awarding substantial damages. The Supreme Court judgment also directed the plaintiff's employer to indemnify the general contractor. On appeal, the court modified the judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's common-law negligence claim due to lack of evidence of the general contractor's fault. The court found the general contractor's liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) to be purely vicarious, entitling it to both contractual and common-law indemnification from the employer, as the plaintiff suffered a grave injury. The appellate court also set aside the damages verdict, directing a new trial on damages only, unless the plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses. Additionally, appeals concerning the resettlement of judgment and renewal of summary judgment motions were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawVicarious LiabilityIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEye InjuryWorkers' CompensationGrave Injury
References
7
Case No. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2006

Shufelt v. Town of Chatham, NY

Plaintiff Mary Shufelt, a former part-time court clerk for the Town of Chatham, New York, filed a lawsuit alleging she was terminated due to her political affiliations, in violation of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants, including Town Justices Doris T. Appel and Jason L. Shaw, moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate business reasons for Shufelt's termination, such as a staff reduction due to decreased workload and the necessity for clerks to work during public office hours. Shufelt contended her dismissal was politically motivated, stemming from her support for her "father" Richard Hallock during a contentious 2003 election for Town Supervisor. Although the court assumed, for summary judgment purposes, that an improper motive might have existed, it found that the defendants successfully demonstrated that they would have taken the same adverse employment action for valid, undisputed business reasons regardless of political considerations. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of Shufelt's complaint with prejudice.

Political discriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentSummary JudgmentPublic employmentCourt clerkTerminationCausationPretextAffirmative defense
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. 01-15-00663-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Devon Wilmington v. Bay Area Utilities, LLC

Devon Wilmington (Appellant) filed a Petition for Writ of Supersedeas and Motion for Temporary Stay of Execution of Judgment to halt the enforcement of a July 27, 2015 judgment from County Court 3, presided over by Judge Wooldridge. The judgment was in favor of Bay Area Utilities, LLC, awarding them $37,020.00 in damages and possession of property in a forcible detainer case. Wilmington argues that a stay is crucial to prevent irreparable harm and safeguard her right to a meaningful appeal, citing her negative net worth and inability to post the $15,000 supersedeas bond set by Judge Linda Storey. She invokes Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 52.006 and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to advocate for a reduction or waiver of the bond due to her financial hardship.

AppealSupersedeas BondStay of ExecutionForcible DetainerIndigencyNet WorthAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil ProcedureJudgment Enforcement
References
6
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
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lim Kwock Soon v. Brownell

This case involves a prior judgment from 1958 which declared Lim Kwock Soon and Lim Kwock Min as U.S. nationals and citizens, following a reversal and remand by the Court of Appeals due to a finding of mistake by the district court. In 1966, a stipulation was filed by the plaintiffs, acknowledging that a fraud was perpetrated upon the court in the original case and agreeing to vacate the 1958 judgment and dismiss their petition with prejudice. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to formally vacate the judgment and enter a new judgment in accordance with this stipulation. However, the District Judge denied this motion, expressing serious doubt about the court's authority to alter a Court of Appeals' order without further direction and considering the case closed. The judge also requested clarification on the fact-finding authority of a district judge in non-jury cases.

FraudVacating JudgmentMotion DeniedDistrict Court AuthorityAppellate ReviewStipulationCitizenshipNationalsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 17,301 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