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

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 51549(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Milosevic v. O'Donnell

The motion court properly dismissed the fourth and fifth causes of action against Joost, which alleged negligence and intentional/wanton conduct. These claims failed under the theory of respondeat superior, as there was no evidence the coworker's alleged assault was within the scope of employment or condoned by Joost. Furthermore, the claims based on common-law negligence for sponsoring an event were also dismissed. The court found no allegations that Joost controlled the premises or was aware of the CFO's violent propensities when intoxicated. The decision highlighted that speculation about discovery would not prevent dismissal, and thus, the court did not need to address whether the claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorAssaultEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewDismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendle v. August Bohl Contracting Co.

Samuel Kendle, an employee of subcontractor Clifford Quay & Sons, Inc., was injured while operating a motorized wheelbarrow at a construction site in Saratoga County. He fell when plywood covering a trench, allegedly dug by defendant August Bohl Contracting Company, Inc. (Bohl), buckled. Kendle and his wife sued the property owners, construction manager, and Bohl, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims but denied Bohl's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence causes of action. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Bohl did not exercise supervisory control over Kendle's work, a necessary element for Labor Law § 200 liability. The court also dismissed the negligence claim, noting that the trench was readily observable to the experienced plaintiff.

Construction AccidentMotorized Wheelbarrow InjuryWorksite HazardSubcontractor NegligenceLabor Law LiabilityLack of Supervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalPlywood Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1993

Gagliardi v. Trapp

The plaintiff, a correction officer, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in her action for assault and negligence. She alleged physical and mental harm after being punched by a fellow correction officer, Darrell Harris, and claimed her employers, New York City Department of Correction and the City of New York, attempted to conceal the incident and discriminated against her. The Supreme Court correctly determined that her negligence claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law as she had already received benefits, and her allegations did not meet the high standard for an intentional tort to circumvent the exclusivity provision. Furthermore, her discrimination claims under Executive Law § 296 were found to be conclusory and unsupported.

AssaultNegligenceWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscriminationExclusive RemedyAppellate DecisionCorrection OfficerRikers IslandEmployers' Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2003

Miller v. Huntington Hospital

This case involves an appeal by the defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff was an at-will employee, and the employer's personnel handbook contained an explicit disclaimer, thus precluding a breach of contract claim. Furthermore, the negligence claim was deemed barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, as it did not allege an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to the employee.

at-will employmentbreach of contractnegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211motion to dismissemployment handbookdisclaimerintentional tortexclusivity provision
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1994

Kuznetz v. County of Nassau

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at Nassau Community College, suffered a fractured ankle after tripping on a staircase at the college. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, she filed a negligence action against the College, the Board of Trustees, and the County of Nassau, alleging negligent maintenance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 as they were joint employers. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to establish that the County, the College, and the Board of Trustees were indeed the plaintiff's joint employers, thus barring the negligence action. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted, dismissing the complaint against all parties.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawJoint EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNassau Community CollegeCounty of NassauEducation LawTrip and Fall
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McFadden v. Lee

The plaintiff, a self-employed painter, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting for the defendants at their home. He filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants did not exercise supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a prerequisite for liability under these specific statutes and common-law negligence when the injury stems from the work method rather than a dangerous premises condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 200Common Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionHomeowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorSupervisory AuthoritySafe Place to Work
References
8
Case No. 01-01-00748-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

Christine House v. Ethyl Corporation

Christine House sued Ethyl Corporation for injuries sustained from chemical exposure, alleging negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace and providing defective equipment. A jury found both parties negligent, attributing 70% of the negligence to House and 30% to Ethyl, leading to a take-nothing judgment for House. House appealed, arguing the jury's allocation of negligence was against the great weight of the evidence and that she deserved a new trial due to alleged jury misconduct during deliberations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence apportionment and ruling that the alleged jury misconduct was an internal matter, not an outside influence.

chemical exposurenegligenceworkplace safetyjury misconductfactual sufficiencycomparative negligenceappellate reviewjuror affidavitspersonal injuryTexas law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balderrama v. Pride Industries, Inc.

The Court considered Defendant's Motion to Dismiss concerning claims of discrimination, retaliation, negligence, and other common-law torts. Plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation based on mental disability, unsafe working conditions, and filing workers' compensation and EEOC complaints. The Court denied the motion to dismiss statutory claims under the ADA and Texas Labor Code, finding them sufficiently alleged. However, the Court granted dismissal for claims of negligence, gross negligence (precluded by TWCA), and negligent investigation (not a recognized tort in Texas). For claims of intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination, and negligent hiring, the Court granted a request for a more definite statement due to insufficient factual allegations.

DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActTexas Labor CodeWorkers' CompensationFederal Enclave DoctrineMotion to DismissNegligenceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWrongful Termination
References
84
Showing 1-10 of 15,566 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