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

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Judlau Contracting, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 permits a partially negligent general contractor to enforce an indemnification provision against its subcontractor for damages attributable to the subcontractor's negligence. The plaintiff, Stephen J. Brooks, an ironworker employed by subcontractor Thunderbird Constructors, Inc., sustained injuries and sued the general contractor, Judlau Contracting, Inc. Judlau asserted a third-party claim for contractual indemnification against Thunderbird, which was initially dismissed by lower courts on the grounds that Judlau's partial negligence precluded indemnification under the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute does permit such indemnification as long as the provision does not seek to indemnify the general contractor for its own negligence, but only for that portion attributable to the subcontractor. The court clarified that the phrase 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' limits the subcontractor's obligation to its own negligence, thereby enforcing the indemnification provision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceConstruction AccidentGeneral Obligations LawWorkers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationPartial NegligenceHold Harmless ClauseThird-Party Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co.

Plaintiff David E. Ridings sustained personal injuries from a fall during his employment by CBI-Nacon, Inc., and filed a negligence and strict liability action against multiple defendants. Following the *McIntyre v. Balentine* decision, defendants sought to amend their answers to assert the employer's negligence as an affirmative defense. The trial court initially denied this as to the employer, but the Court of Appeals reversed. This interlocutory appeal addresses whether defendants can attribute fault to an employer immune under workers' compensation laws. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that fault can only be attributed to persons against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action in tort, thus precluding the attribution of fault to an immune employer.

Comparative FaultWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAffirmative DefenseEmployer NegligenceThird-Party LiabilityTort LawPersonal InjuryInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationContribution Among Tortfeasors
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
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. 04-17-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

David Mora, Texas Sterling Construction Co. A/K/A Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. A/K/A Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc. v. Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, Both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit where two construction workers were injured and one killed when an unsecured toolbox fell from their foreman's trailer. The plaintiffs, Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, sued the foreman David Mora and employers Texas Sterling Construction Co. and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found the driver of the third vehicle not negligent and Texas Sterling grossly negligent, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions on the course and scope of employment, the defense of sudden emergency, and gross negligence attributable to Texas Sterling through its Corporate Safety Director, José González.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentSudden Emergency DefenseEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesLegal Sufficiency
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cotazino v. Basil Development Corp.

Plaintiffs sued Basil Development Corporation and Peter Baltis for breach of contract/warranty and negligence after purchasing a home with numerous defects and water leaks. The jury awarded plaintiffs $20,000 for breach of contract/warranty and $17,000 for negligence, rejecting defendants' counterclaim. On appeal, the court found sufficient evidence for the contract claim but reduced the negligence award to $2,182.96, attributing only specific damages to negligence. Furthermore, the court reversed the imposition of personal liability on Peter Baltis, stating insufficient evidence to disregard the corporate entity of Basil Development Corporation. Finally, the court clarified the calculation of interest, affirming September 10, 1986, for the contract claim and establishing August 31, 1987, as the date for the negligence claim interest.

Breach of ContractBreach of WarrantyNegligenceCorporate VeilPersonal LiabilityDamagesInterest CalculationReal PropertyHome ConstructionDefective Workmanship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frias v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

The case concerns an appeal by the surviving family of Jesus Valentin Frias, who sued his former employers for workers' compensation benefits, wrongful death, intentional injury, negligence, and gross negligence, attributing his death from aplastic anemia to benzene exposure during his employment. The trial court initially granted the employers' motion for summary judgment on the intentional injury and gross negligence claims, which was the subject of this appeal. The appellate court found that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar actions for intentional torts or gross negligence for exemplary damages, thus reversing the summary judgment. Furthermore, the court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the employers' conduct constituted gross negligence and intentional injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathIntentional InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealBenzene ExposureOccupational DiseaseExclusive RemedyExemplary Damages
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batista v. City of New York

This multi-party litigation stems from a fatal rear-end collision on the Jackie Robinson Parkway. Welsbach Electric Corp. employees were setting up a lane closure when Vladimir Magliore stopped his van behind their truck and was struck by a motorcycle operated by Luis Torres, who died, and his passenger, Arelis Batista, was injured. Batista and Casilda Torres, as the decedent's administratrix, initiated separate actions against the City of New York, various Welsbach entities (Welsbach defendants), and Magliore. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Magliore, finding the decedent solely negligent, and subsequently granted summary judgment to the Welsbach defendants and the City, concluding their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. On appeal, the court found the Supreme Court erred on the application of collateral estoppel regarding the Welsbach defendants and the City's negligence but ultimately affirmed the summary judgment grants, agreeing that any alleged negligence by the Welsbach defendants and the City merely furnished the condition for the accident and was not its proximate cause, which was solely attributed to the decedent's negligence.

Rear-end collisionSummary judgmentProximate causeNegligenceCollateral estoppelConsolidated actionsAppellate reviewTraffic accidentConstruction zoneMotorcycle accident
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,333 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