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. 14-19-00794-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2021

Hector Argueta, Jr. D/B/A Argueta Bus Service v. Mysterie Guiterrez, as Next Friend of M.C., a Minor Child

Max, a five-year-old, suffered a skull fracture and subdural hematoma after falling out of a school bus emergency exit. His mother, Mysterie Gutierrez, sued the bus operator, Hector Argueta, Jr. d/b/a Argueta Bus Service, for negligence. A jury awarded Gutierrez approximately $1.9 million in damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment in part, upholding findings of negligence and assessments for past and future physical pain and mental anguish, and future medical expenses until age 18. However, the court reversed and rendered the $1,000,000 award for future medical expenses after Max turns 18, finding a complete absence of supporting evidence.

School Bus AccidentChild InjuryNegligence ClaimTraumatic Brain InjurySkull FractureSubdural HematomaMedical ExpensesFuture DamagesEvidentiary RulingSufficiency of Evidence
References
29
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02521 [227 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

Dolores v. Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc.

Cleotilde Dolores, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries when her school bus was struck from the rear by another school bus owned by Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc., and driven by Samuel Bercy. She subsequently filed a personal injury action against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the parties shared a special employment relationship with nonparty Logan Bus Payroll Systems, Inc., which would invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and bar the action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to establish the existence of such a special employment relationship.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBus AccidentRear-End CollisionAppellate PracticePrima Facie BurdenKings County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1987

Madarash v. Long Island Rail Road Co.

Plaintiffs, employees of the Long Island Rail Road Company (LIRR), initially sued LIRR under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained in a 1983 collision. Subsequently, Green Bus Lines, Inc. (Green Bus) was added as a defendant through an amended complaint, following indications that a Green Bus vehicle caused the accident. Green Bus successfully moved to dismiss these claims, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the absence of "serious injuries" under New York's No-Fault Law. However, the court allowed the LIRR to implead Green Bus and for plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint, re-asserting state law claims against Green Bus. Green Bus then moved to dismiss this Second Amended Complaint on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. The court denied both motions, affirming its pendant-party jurisdiction and ruling that the action was timely under New York's savings statute, N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law § 205(a). The court also critically noted Green Bus's significant delay in challenging jurisdiction, suggesting potential sanctions for needlessly incurred jury selection expenses.

FELAPendant JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureNew York LawCourt DelaySanctionsPersonal Injury
References
16
Case No. 10-CV-4079
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2013

Sass v. MTA Bus Co.

Plaintiff Gary Sass sued his former employer, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bus Company (MTA Bus), alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. A jury initially found in favor of Sass, awarding him damages. However, shortly after the verdict, the Supreme Court issued its decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which established a stricter "but-for causation" standard for Title VII retaliation claims, replacing the previous "motivating factor" standard. Based on this new precedent, MTA Bus moved for a new trial. The Court denied MTA Bus's motion for judgment as a matter of law but granted a new trial, ruling that the Nassar standard applied retroactively and necessitated a re-evaluation of the causation element under the correct legal framework.

RetaliationTitle VIIJury InstructionsNew TrialBut-for CausationMotivating FactorFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Supreme Court PrecedentRetroactive Application
References
51
Case No. 03-10-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby v. USA Bus Charter, Inc.

Appellants Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby sued USA Bus Charter, Inc. over problems with chartered buses, including deceptive pricing, late arrivals, and insufficient seating, which initially led to a no-answer default judgment against USA Bus. The district court subsequently granted USA Bus's motion for a new trial, set aside the default judgment, and compelled arbitration, dismissing the suit. Appellants appealed these rulings, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting the new trial and enforcing the arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that USA Bus's corporate counsel's mistake of law regarding Arizona procedural rules constituted a sufficient excuse under the Craddock elements to justify a new trial. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellants' challenges to the arbitration agreement (illusoriness and unconscionability) were broad contract challenges that must be decided by an arbitrator, and upheld the requirement for arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona, under Arizona law.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMistake of LawMeritorious Defense
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fontus v. D & J School Bus

Carole Fontus was allegedly injured after being struck by a school bus owned by D & J School Bus and operated by DT Transportation, Inc., with Pasquale Amodei as the driver. Fontus and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants raised a fifth affirmative defense, claiming Fontus and Amodei were coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), thus barring the action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the fifth affirmative defense, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the employment relationship between the parties.

Personal InjurySchool Bus AccidentCo-employmentWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeEmployment RelationshipMotor Vehicle Accident
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,731 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