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

Martegani v. Cirrus Design Corp.

Micaela Martegani, individually and as natural guardian of her minor child, commenced a wrongful death action against Cirrus Design Corporation and East End Aviation following her husband's death in a 2006 plane crash. The parties reached a settlement, and Martegani sought court approval, including attorney's fees and the establishment of a trust for the minor child's share. The court approved the settlement in principle, but significantly reduced the requested attorney's fees by 30% due to the absence of contemporaneous time records. Additionally, the court denied the recovery of "case expenses" and a $5,000 reserve due to insufficient documentation. The final order authorized Martegani to settle the claims, with specific allocations for attorney's fees, the minor child's trust, and Martegani's personal compensation.

Infant SettlementWrongful DeathPlane CrashAttorney FeesContingency FeeCourt ApprovalMinor Child TrustSettlement AllocationCase ExpensesDocumentation Requirements
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2013

Barclay v. Techno-Design, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Codino's Foods, Inc., sustained serious injuries to his right hand and arm while operating a food processing machine. He commenced a negligence action against Techno-Design, Inc., the manufacturer. Techno-Design, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint for indemnification and contribution against Codino's Foods, Inc. Codino moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff did not suffer a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which would bar Techno-Design's claims. The Supreme Court partially denied Codino's motion, but on appeal, the court found that plaintiff's injury, while severe, did not constitute a 'total loss of use' of his hand or a 'loss of multiple fingers' as narrowly defined by the statute. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granted Codino's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and dismissed the third-party complaint against Codino's Foods, Inc.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionProducts LiabilityTotal Loss of UseLoss of Multiple FingersAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Villa Independent School District v. Gomez Garza Design, Inc.

La Villa Independent School District appealed a judgment in favor of Gomez Garza Design, Inc. for breach of contract. The case stemmed from a 1995 agreement for architectural services, where a dispute arose when La Villa hired another firm for a new elementary school project after Garza Design had commenced preliminary work under the existing contract. The trial court's judgment, based on a jury finding, awarded Garza Design $52,850.00. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions regarding the existence of a valid contract, the superintendent's authority to bind the school district, and the calculation of damages. The court also determined that the contract did not violate the Professional Services Procurement Act.

Breach of contractArchitectural servicesSchool districtSuperintendent authorityContract validityProfessional Services Procurement ActDamagesJury findingsJudgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)Estoppel
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. CNA Insurance

In January 1996, the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working and received workers’ compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. She later settled a third-party negligence action for $32,500 without obtaining the required consent from CNA. The petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for this settlement. The Supreme Court initially granted approval, but the appellate court reversed and remitted due to insufficient documentation. Following the submission of additional evidence, the Supreme Court again granted approval, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court reviewed the relevant factors, noting evidence suggesting difficulty in proving serious injury and that respondent CNA suffered no prejudice from the delay. Despite the normal three-month limit for such applications, the Supreme Court's exercise of broad discretion in approving the settlement was not deemed an abuse. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentThird-Party SettlementJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncConsent RequirementDiscretionary AuthorityAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Company

Santiago Gonzales, who sustained back injuries after falling from a step on a Caterpillar Traxcavator, sued Caterpillar alleging design defect and negligent design. A jury initially found in favor of Gonzales, awarding $252,991.05. The Court of Civil Appeals subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that there was no evidence to support claims of design defect or negligent design. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, determining that there was evidentiary support for both the design defect and negligent design findings made by the jury. The case was remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for further consideration of factual insufficiency points.

Design DefectNegligent DesignProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryIndustrial EquipmentHeavy MachineryWorker SafetySlip and FallEvidentiary Review
References
10
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. 03-12-00334-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2013

Sylva Engineering Corporation v. Hasan Giray Kaya

Sylva Engineering Corporation appealed a district court order denying its motion to dismiss a negligence claim by Hasan Giray Kaya. Kaya alleged negligence in the design of State Highway 45 after an automobile accident, asserting that Sylva, a subcontractor, negligently designed a flat portion of the highway and failed to specify pavement drainage inlets, leading to water pooling. Sylva argued that Kaya's certificate of merit did not comply with Chapter 150 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding the standard of care and the factual basis for the claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the standard of care. However, it reversed and dismissed the claim alleging Sylva was negligent in designing the road's flat slope, finding the affidavit attributed this design flaw to KBR, not Sylva.

Interlocutory AppealMotion to DismissNegligence ClaimCertificate of MeritCivil Practice and Remedies CodeEngineering DesignRoadway DrainageStandard of CareFactual BasisSubcontractor Liability
References
13
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. 2024 NY Slip Op 03334
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Loaiza v. Museum of Arts & Design

Plaintiff, a commercial window washer, fell while performing work on the exterior of a building and subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his accident was proximately caused by a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments of comparative negligence and recalcitrant worker defense, stating that the plaintiff's omission of a specific safety knot was at most comparative negligence and not a sole proximate cause, and no evidence supported intentional disregard of safety instructions.

Window Washing AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Fall ProtectionSafety DevicesSummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNew York Appellate Division
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,678 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