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. 2018 NY Slip Op 00588 [158 AD3d 866]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2018

Matter of Jelic (Ama Research Labs. Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Vera Jelic, a laboratory technician, was terminated from AMA Research Laboratories Inc. due to repeated tardiness and absenteeism. She filed for unemployment insurance benefits, which were initially granted by the Department of Labor and affirmed by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The employer appealed, arguing that Jelic's actions constituted disqualifying misconduct. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that while the employer had cause for termination, Jelic's conduct did not demonstrate a willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest to rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. The court noted that disciplinary actions occurred after a work-related injury and that Jelic was not given an opportunity to correct her behavior prior to termination.

Unemployment InsuranceDisqualifying MisconductTardinessAbsenteeismEmployment TerminationWillful and Wanton DisregardSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionLabor LawEmployer Interest
References
6
Case No. 01-19-00642-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. v. Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc.

James J. McKinley and Kin-Tek Laboratories, Inc. (appellants) appealed a final judgment in favor of Kin-Tek Analytical, Inc. (appellee), following a jury verdict on damages and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from an Asset Purchase Agreement where Analytical acquired Laboratories' assets, with McKinley holding 40% of Analytical's shares. Appellants initially sued Analytical and Botts for various claims, later nonsuiting them, leading to Analytical pursuing counterclaims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and fraudulent inducement. The jury found that McKinley and Laboratories failed to comply with the Agreement, awarding Analytical damages for various 'Excluded Liabilities' and product-related issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's damages awards and rejecting appellants' arguments regarding fraudulent inducement and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractAsset Purchase AgreementJury VerdictDamages AwardAttorney FeesSufficiency of EvidenceExcluded LiabilitiesProduct Documentation IssuesProduct Design DefectsFailure to Disclose
References
21
Case No. 14-19-00488-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine, Diakonos Research, Ltd., and William K. Decker

Appellant Gensetix, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of its claims against Baylor College of Medicine, Diakonos Research, Ltd., and William K. Decker under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The appellate court determined that the TCPA applied to Gensetix's claims, which involved communications related to medical research on cancer treatment, thus constituting a matter of public concern. However, Gensetix failed to provide clear and specific evidence of damages for its claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy, offering only conclusory allegations. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of Gensetix's claims was affirmed, and the court also upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA's mandatory fee-shifting provisions.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPFree SpeechRight of AssociationIntellectual PropertyPatent RightsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1997

Capalbo v. Lederle Laboratories, Inc.

All Bright Electric appealed an order concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of All Bright Electric, was injured after falling from a ladder while drilling, leading to claims under common-law negligence. The plaintiff later sought to amend the complaint to include Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, citing unexcused delay and lack of merit. Consequently, with the common-law negligence claim already dismissed, no viable causes of action remained against Lederle Laboratories, Inc., and Lederle's third-party complaint against All Bright for common-law and contractual indemnification was dismissed. However, the court upheld the denial of All Bright's motion to dismiss Hilti Company, Inc.'s cross-claim, citing unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationAmended ComplaintAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawDrill AccidentLadder Fall
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Song v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.

Dr. Samuel Song was terminated by Ives Laboratories, Inc., leading him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, which was referred to the SDHR. The SDHR dismissed his complaint for administrative convenience. Song subsequently sued, alleging national origin discrimination under federal civil rights acts and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Section 1981 claim and the state law claim. The court granted dismissal of the Section 1981 claim, applying the precedent of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Human Rights Law claim, affirming that an administrative convenience dismissal by the SDHR preserves the right to sue and that exercising pendent jurisdiction was appropriate.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawRetroactive Application of LawPendent JurisdictionElection of RemediesAdministrative Convenience DismissalSummary Judgment
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc.

Appellant Joyce Martin sued Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (CPL) for wrongful termination, alleging she was fired for leaving work early to vote. The trial court dismissed her case, and Martin appealed. The appellate court first addressed Martin's standing to sue, concluding that despite filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, she retained standing as her claim revested in her upon the confirmation of her bankruptcy plan. On the merits, Martin argued for a new common-law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, citing Texas public policy and the Texas Election Code. However, the appellate court declined to create such an exception, emphasizing the legislature's role in defining exceptions to the at-will doctrine and noting that Martin's pleadings did not definitively show a violation of the Election Code. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal.

wrongful terminationemployment at willright to voteTexas Election Codepublic policy exceptionChapter 13 bankruptcystandingappellate reviewcase dismissalemployer retaliation
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tardd v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Malry Tarrd and Otto White sued Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and several individual employees, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract under Title VII, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1985(3), 1986, and the NYSHRL. Plaintiffs described a hostile work environment, racial slurs, a Ku Klux Klan hood incident, and denied promotions. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, and the federal enclave doctrine. The Court partially granted the dismissal motion, notably dismissing certain individual Section 1981 and NYSHRL claims, all Section 1985 and 1986 claims, and most breach of contract claims, while allowing Tardd's breach of settlement agreement claim to proceed. The Court also denied the defendants' motion regarding the federal enclave doctrine and rejected the plaintiffs' request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 1981NYSHRLMotion to DismissJudgment on PleadingsFederal Enclave DoctrineElection of Remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories

Plaintiff James Doyle Lupo sued Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation for age discrimination under Section 21.051 of the Texas Labor Code and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both claims. Lupo, a 53-year-old sales representative, was terminated in a Reduction-in-Force (RIF) and alleged that the criteria for his termination were pretextual, claiming his duties were assumed by a younger, less qualified person. The court found that Lupo failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the defendants' legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination and his arguments of pretext were insufficient. Additionally, the court determined that Wyeth's conduct during the discharge process did not constitute "extreme and outrageous" behavior necessary for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Texas Labor CodeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentPretextMotion for Summary JudgmentSales Force
References
80
Case No. 01-02-01101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2006

N.N. v. Institute for Rehabilitation & Research

N.N., as next friend of her daughter A.B., sued The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) for damages stemming from A.B.'s sexual assault while hospitalized. A.B., who had a brain injury and was severely impaired, was sexually assaulted by another patient. The jury found TIRR negligent and awarded damages for past and future mental anguish. The trial court initially granted a JNOV on future damages and suggested remittitur for past damages, leading to a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the JNOV, finding sufficient legal and factual evidence to support the $625,000 award for future mental anguish. The court also rejected TIRR's constitutional challenges to the appellate rules and its factual sufficiency arguments regarding negligence. The case was remanded for judgment to reinstate the jury's verdict for future mental anguish damages.

Sexual AssaultMedical MalpracticeNegligenceBrain InjuryMental Anguish DamagesFuture DamagesJudgment N.O.V.Factual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyConstitutional Challenge
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 179 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