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. 10-95-183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 1996

Texas Engineering Extension Service v. Ronald Parrish and Anita Parrish

Ronald Parrish was injured at the Texas Engineering Extension Service (TEES) Fire Fighting School due to the negligent operation of fuel valves by a TEES employee, resulting in burning gasoline falling on a co-worker who then collided with Parrish, causing severe knee injuries. Parrish sued TEES under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was awarded $75,000 by a jury. TEES appealed the judgment, challenging the jury issues regarding negligent activity and motor-driven equipment, and the refusal to consider comparative negligence of Parrish's employer, Shell Oil Company, due to Workers' Compensation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the case involved negligent activity and that the jury's findings were supported by evidence, and that Shell's negligence was not a valid consideration in a third-party action under Workers' Compensation law.

Governmental Tort LiabilityNegligent OperationFire Fighting TrainingPersonal Injury DamagesTexas Tort Claims ActAppellate AffirmationJury VerdictMotor Driven EquipmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityComparative Negligence
References
6
Case No. 05-17-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2018

Ana Arana, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor Arana, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries Edgar Arana, Paola Arana, and Alexander Arana v. K. Hovnanian Homes-DFW, L.L.C.

Victor Arana, a framer, tragically died after falling from a rafter at a construction site managed by K. Hovnanian Homes-DFW, L.L.C. His family filed a lawsuit asserting negligence and negligence per se claims, arguing that Hovnanian owed a duty of care based on control over the work, premises defects, and negligent activity. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hovnanian. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Aranas failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding Hovnanian's duty under theories of control or premises liability, and their argument for negligent activity was not adequately presented for review.

Construction Site SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises Owner DutyNegligence ClaimsWrongful Death LitigationSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Court of AppealsFall AccidentSubcontractor RelationshipOSHA Regulations
References
31
Case No. 14-22-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2023

Marcell Rodriguez Segovia v. Houston Metals, LLC

Segovia, a truck driver, sued Houston Metals, LLC for negligence and gross negligence after falling from his truck while securing a load of scrap metal at their facility, sustaining injuries. He alleged Houston Metals overloaded his truck by volume. Houston Metals filed summary judgment motions, arguing lack of evidence for negligent-activity or premises-liability claims, and that Segovia couldn't establish duty or proximate cause. The trial court granted summary judgment for Houston Metals. On appeal, Segovia argued genuine issues of material fact existed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the case de novo, finding no evidence of contemporaneous negligent activity by Houston Metals at the time of Segovia's injury, distinguishing it from a premises-liability claim since the dangerous condition was on his truck, not Houston Metals' premises. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

NegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligent ActivityTruck DriverScrap MetalPersonal InjuryDutyProximate Cause
References
17
Case No. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbarito v. County of Tompkins

Plaintiff Nicholas Barbarito was injured while adjusting a garage door chain at a facility operated by the Tompkins County Highway Department and owned by the County of Tompkins, leading to a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, deeming the activity 'repairing' and finding a proximate cause violation. On appeal, the defendants successfully argued that plaintiff's activity of adjusting a loose garage door chain constituted routine maintenance, not a 'repair' or other enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), which distinguishes activities necessitated by normal wear and tear from covered repairs. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The court also dismissed the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims, finding that maintenance work is not covered by § 241 (6) and there was no showing that defendants exercised supervisory control or that the dangerous condition arose from anything other than the work's performance.

Labor Law § 240(1)Routine MaintenanceRepair WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIndustrial AccidentGarage Door RepairPersonal InjuryStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. 05-19-01327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2022

Joseph Cobb v. Ronald Hansen and Lisa Hansen

Joseph Cobb sued Ronald and Lisa Hansen for personal injuries sustained when their gas pizza oven exploded. Cobb's claims included premises liability, negligent activity, and failure to render aid. The trial court submitted only a premises liability question to the jury, resulting in a take-nothing judgment against Cobb. On appeal, Cobb argued the trial court erred by refusing to submit a broad-form general negligence question. The appellate court found Cobb preserved error and that the trial court abused its discretion, leading to a partial reversal and remand for a new trial on specific negligent activity and failure-to-render-aid claims.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityNegligent ActivityFailure to Render AidJury Charge ErrorAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureExplosion
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cangemi v. Cole

In this automobile negligence action, the defendant appealed the Special Term's denial of their motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff had not sustained a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102. The appellate court reviewed physician reports which indicated the plaintiff's only significant injury was to the shoulder. While there was initial pain, the plaintiff achieved full passive and active range of motion within seven months, with no expected permanency and no loss of regular work duties. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff did not suffer a 'significant limitation of use of a body function or system' and unanimously reversed the Special Term's order, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAutomobile NegligenceSerious InjuryInsurance LawShoulder InjuryAppellate ReversalMotion GrantedNo Permanent InjuryRange of MotionOnondaga County
References
3
Case No. 06 Civ. 0266; 06 Civ. 3461; 07 Civ. 3258
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2007

Abbatiello v. Monsanto Co.

This case involves consolidated actions brought by two groups of current and former employees and a group of landowners against General Electric Company (GE) and Monsanto Company (including Solutia, Inc., and Pharmacia Corporation). The plaintiffs allege various tort claims including negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, fraud, emotional distress, abnormally dangerous activity, medical monitoring, fear of contracting illness, nuisance, and trespass, stemming from exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from a GE manufacturing facility in Schenectady, New York, where Monsanto supplied PCBs. The defendants moved to dismiss certain claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, upholding claims such as abnormally dangerous activity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, medical monitoring, fear of contracting illness, and, for GE, negligence, strict liability, and trespass, while dismissing claims like breach of warranty, fraud, and negligent infliction of emotional distress for various parties.

Toxic TortPCB ContaminationEnvironmental LitigationMotions to DismissStatute of LimitationsStrict LiabilityAbnormally Dangerous ActivityMedical MonitoringFear of IllnessNuisance
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 6,354 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