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
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

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

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
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

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
May 15, 1996

Voiclis v. International Ass'n of Machinist & Aerospace Workers

The defendant, International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, Suffolk Lodge No. 1470, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. This order had granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict in the defendant's favor and directed a new trial. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the plaintiffs’ motion, and reinstated the original jury verdict. The decision emphasized that a jury verdict should not be set aside unless no fair interpretation of the evidence could support it, highlighting the deference accorded to the jury's fact-finding role and credibility determinations. The court concluded that a fair basis existed for the verdict in the appellant's favor, thus the verdict should not have been disturbed.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictAppealOrder ReversalAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCPLR 4404New Trial DenialDamages ClaimJudicial Discretion
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,383 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