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

Eddie C. Pratcher, Jr. v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hospitals

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a trial court's decision to deny a defendant's (Consultants in Anesthesia, Inc.) motion to amend its answer to include a statute of repose defense, even after a new trial had been granted. The dissenting judge, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, especially given the liberal policy favoring amendments under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 15.01. The judge contends that the defendant's delay in asserting the defense was not undue, citing changes in procedural rules and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, Ms. Pratcher. He emphasizes that justice requires equal liberality for defendants to amend their answers to add meritorious defenses.

Dissenting OpinionStatute of ReposeMotion to AmendPleading AmendmentsAffirmative DefenseAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court DiscretionWaiver DefenseProcedural RulesCivil Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1993

Girardin v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 24, 1993. This order granted the defendants' motion to amend their answers to include the affirmative defense of res judicata and subsequently dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting leave to amend. The appellate court noted that the defense of res judicata was not available at the time of joinder of issue, as Workers’ Compensation determinations were still pending. The delay in filing the motion to amend after these determinations was not considered excessive. The plaintiffs' claim of prejudice due to the delay was rejected, as they had the opportunity to appeal the Workers’ Compensation determinations but chose not to.

Personal InjuriesRes JudicataCPLR 3025(b)Leave to AmendAffirmative DefenseDismissal of ComplaintAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionPrejudiceSupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlingford Australia General Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Carlingford Australia General Insurance Limited (plaintiff) and defendant reinsurers, including St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company, and CIGNA Corporation, along with broker Marsh & McLennan, Inc., concerning a worker's compensation reinsurance policy. The core issue revolves around whether the reinsurance was on an aggregate or per-occurrence basis. Defendants moved to amend their answers to introduce an affirmative defense and counterclaim for rescission, alleging the plaintiff concealed material facts about its premium arrangements with the insured (Courtaulds-Nilsen), which seemingly guaranteed the plaintiff a profit. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law such as Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Ocean Insurance Company and China Union Lines v. American Marine Underwriters, granted the reinsurers' motion to amend their answers, concluding that the arguments regarding the materiality of the non-disclosures address the merits and should be allowed to be tested.

Reinsurance DisputeWorker's Compensation InsuranceMotion to Amend PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCounterclaim for RescissionMaterial NondisclosureInsurance PremiumsUnderwriting PracticesBroker LiabilityContract Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

System Federation No. 152, Railway Employees' Department v. Pennsylvania Railroad

This case concerns a dispute between System Federation No. 152 (representing Sheet Metal Workers) and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, along with Transport Workers Union of America (representing Carmen), over job assignments following the closure of railroad yards in Pittsburgh. System Federation No. 152 sought to enforce a Railway Adjustment Board order that initially favored Sheet Metal Workers. The Railroad moved to amend its answer after a Supreme Court decision (TCE Union) clarified that the Board must consider collective bargaining agreements from all involved unions. The court found that the TWU-Railroad contract contained provisions that might alter the outcome of the job assignment dispute, particularly regarding positions vacated by force reduction or job abolishment. Consequently, the court granted the Railroad's motion to amend, paving the way for a remand to the Board to reconsider the dispute by taking into account both the Sheet Metal Workers' and the Carmen's union contracts.

Railway Adjustment Boardcollective bargaining agreementjurisdictional disputejob assignmentsSheet Metal WorkersCarmenunion contractsmotion to amendfederal procedureRule 15(a)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 1984

Goldstein v. Barco of California, Inc.

The fourth-party defendant, Nathan’s Famous of Massapequa, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to amend its fourth-party answer. The proposed amendment aimed to plead the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the order, holding that an employer may be liable in a third-party or fourth-party action for an employee's injury, even if a direct action by the employee against the employer would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court cited precedent, including Dole v Dow Chem. Co., affirming that workers' compensation provisions do not bar such actions for indemnification or contribution. Consequently, the motion to amend the answer was deemed to be devoid of merit and was properly denied.

Workers' CompensationFourth-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendIndemnificationContributionExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPleading Amendment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2013

Conroy v. Incorporated Village

The plaintiffs, former lifeguards, initiated an action against their employer, the defendant municipality, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 203-c due to the surreptitious installation of a video recording device in their changing room. Additionally, they asserted common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The defendant subsequently sought to amend its answer to include affirmative defenses, specifically invoking the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law and noncompliance with notice of claim statutes (CPLR 9801 and General Municipal Law § 50-e). The court partially granted the defendant's motion, allowing the Workers’ Compensation Law defense to be asserted only against the intentional infliction of emotional harm claim. However, the court denied the application of this defense to the negligence claim, noting that Labor Law § 203-c provides cumulative remedies. Furthermore, the court denied the defendant's attempt to assert a defense based on defective notices of claim, deeming the plaintiffs' notices sufficient.

Labor LawVideo SurveillanceEmployer LiabilityEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendNotice of ClaimMunicipal LawCivil Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 16,530 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