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

Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal regarding a jury's finding that plaintiff Pedro Pena was not a special employee of the defendant, following an accident resulting in personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, had previously set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the jury verdict, thereby upholding the jury's original finding. Additionally, the defendant's cross-appeal for judgment as a matter of law was denied. The court emphasized that determining a special employment relationship is a question of fact for the jury, with several factors to consider. Ultimately, costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, affirming the jury's initial determination.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury DamagesEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityQuestion of FactTrial Court ReversalCosts Awarded
References
17
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. 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
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. 530732-98
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2001

Cohen v. Anne C.

Ms. C., a patient diagnosed with schizo-affective and bipolar disorders, appealed an August 2000 court order extending her Assisted Outpatient Treatment (A.O.T.) under New York's Kendra's Law (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.60). This case represents the first jury appeal of a Kendra's Law A.O.T. order. The court, presided over by Justice Norman C. Ryp, addressed novel procedural questions regarding the nature of the proceeding, the parties' roles, and the burden of proof. It concluded that the proceeding was an appeal, with Ms. C. as the appellant bearing the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, limited to the evidence presented at the initial August 2000 hearing. The jury verdict, rendered on March 8, 2001, affirmed the prior A.O.T. extension order.

Kendra's LawAssisted Outpatient TreatmentMental Hygiene LawJury AppealMental IllnessSchizo-affective DisorderBipolar DisorderAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseDue Process
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning product liability actions. The central issue was whether defendants could present evidence of the plaintiff's employer's actions (alteration, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the product) as contributing to the plaintiff's injuries, despite the employer's tort immunity under workers' compensation law. The Court affirmed that such evidence is admissible to establish cause-in-fact. However, the jury may not assess fault against the employer, ensuring the employer's immunity is maintained while allowing defendants to present a complete defense. The Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling in Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and deemed the second certified question unnecessary to address.

Products LiabilityComparative FaultEmployer ImmunityWorkers' CompensationCause-in-FactProximate CauseStrict LiabilityNegligenceCertified QuestionsTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transamerica Insurance Co. of Texas v. Green

This case concerns an appeal in a workers' compensation dispute. The appellee, Deborah Green, sustained an injury while working for Dairy Queen and sought compensation from Transamerica Insurance Company. The jury found in Green's favor, but Transamerica appealed, alleging errors in the trial court's jury questions regarding the calculation of Green's average daily wage. Specifically, Transamerica argued that the questions improperly assumed a disputed fact—whether a comparator employee was in "same or similar employment" as Green—and constituted an impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence. The appellate court agreed with Transamerica, concluding that the trial court's questions precluded the jury from making a necessary factual determination and considering all relevant wage rate evidence. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationWage Rate CalculationJury Instruction ErrorDisputed FactComment on EvidenceSame or Similar EmploymentAverage Weekly WageTexas Civil StatutesAppellate ReviewReversal
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Erdle Perforating Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of Tempa Employment Service, was injured while operating the defendant's steel roller machine. The jury found that the plaintiff was not an ad hoc employee of the defendant at the time of injury, thus not restricting him to recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and awarded damages in a negligence action. The defendant appealed, contending the trial court erred in denying its motion for dismissal and submitting the case to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the question of whether the plaintiff became a special employee of the defendant was properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and the evidence supported the verdict.

NegligenceIndustrial AccidentWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial EmployeeAd Hoc EmployeeJury QuestionEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewTort LawLabor Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkland v. State

The appellant, Kirkland, appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing significant errors related to interim jury service. He contended that jurors selected for his case were biased due to prior service on similar DWI cases before his trial began, requesting they be struck or a mistrial be declared. Additionally, Kirkland challenged the admission of extraneous offenses, specifically concerning unpaid traffic citations, and an allegedly improper question from the prosecutor during cross-examination. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the jury selection issues, and any errors concerning extraneous offenses or the prosecutor's question were cured by proper instructions to the jury.

Interim Jury ServiceDWI ConvictionJury Selection ChallengesJury BiasVoir Dire ExaminationExtraneous OffensesTraffic ViolationsAppellate ProcedureCriminal LawTexas
References
47
Case No. 14-18-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2019

Roel Saenz-Guerrero v. Jerry Gardner

Roel Saenz-Guerrero sued Jeffrey Gardner for negligence following a vehicle collision. The jury returned a verdict in Gardner's favor. Saenz-Guerrero appealed, asserting error in the trial court's jury charge, specifically the use of the term “injuries” in Question No. 1 instead of “occurrence.” He argued that it misstated the law and was inappropriate given the absence of comparative negligence claims. The appellate court found that Saenz-Guerrero did not preserve his argument that the term “injuries” was ambiguous. Regarding the argument about the lack of comparative negligence, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, as the authorities cited by Saenz-Guerrero did not prohibit the use of “injuries” in a negligence jury question. The court affirmed the trial court's final judgment.

NegligenceVehicle CollisionJury Charge ErrorProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorComparative NegligenceAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 4,952 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