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

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1996

Gropper v. St. Luke's Hospital Center

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, a steamfitter, alleged injuries from a slip and fall at a construction site. The defense claimed the accident was feigned, particularly highlighting inconsistencies in workers' compensation accident reports regarding the date of injury. The trial court initially set aside a jury verdict favoring the defendants and ordered a new trial on liability and damages. However, the Supreme Court, New York County, reversed this decision, finding that references to workers' compensation during summation were permissible as the plaintiff had 'opened the door' to the issue. Consequently, the jury's original verdict in favor of the defendants was reinstated, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingSummation ArgumentInconsistent StatementsAccident ReportLiabilityDamages
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Applegate v. Home Indemnity Co.

Johnny Applegate appeals from a jury verdict in his workers' compensation claim for a low back injury sustained at Safeway in 1983. The jury found he was injured at work but failed to provide notice within 30 days. Applegate argued his delay was due to believing his injury was not job-related, but the jury determined this belief was not good cause under the prudent-person test. The court reviewed the legal standard for 'good cause' in workers' compensation cases, emphasizing that an employee's ignorance of the Act's provisions does not constitute good cause. The court found that a jury could reasonably infer a prudent person would have connected the injury to the job sooner and therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryGood CausePrudent Person TestJury VerdictAppealLow Back InjurySpina BifidaMedical DiagnosisEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Thomas

The appellant, H. B. Zachry Company, appealed a jury verdict that awarded the appellee workmen’s compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity. The appeal raised concerns about the trial court's decision not to grant a mistrial, specifically regarding the appellee's failure to timely disclose Dr. A. E. Minyard as an expert medical witness during discovery. The appellant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding of total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court concluded there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing Dr. Minyard's testimony, noting that the medical evidence was thoroughly developed and Dr. Minyard's findings primarily offered a different conclusion from existing medical reports. Furthermore, the court affirmed the jury's findings on total and permanent incapacity, the date of injury, and the good cause for the delayed filing of the claim, ultimately overruling all seventeen assignments of error. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationExpert Witness TestimonyDiscovery Rules ViolationRule 168 Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureTotal and Permanent IncapacitySufficiency of EvidenceJury MisconductAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident BoardMedical Testimony
References
15
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

Goad v. MacOn County, Tenn.

Plaintiff Joe Goad initiated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, alleging excessive force and denial of medical attention while a pretrial detainee. After some defendants settled, the case proceeded to trial, where a jury found Jeff Bilbrey, James Mercer, and Macon County liable for unreasonable force, and Mercer and Macon County for denial of medical treatment, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to reduce the jury verdict by the amount of the earlier settlement. Applying Tennessee law and federal common law principles, the court granted the set-off for compensatory damages, finding it consistent with the goal of victim compensation without creating a windfall. However, the court denied the set-off for punitive damages, reasoning that such a reduction would undermine the specific purpose of punishment and deterrence against civil rights violators.

Civil Rights ActionExcessive ForceDenial of Medical TreatmentPretrial DetaineeSettlement Set-offPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesJoint LiabilityFederal Common LawState Law Application
References
13
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

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,618 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