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

Conroy v. Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB

Plaintiff Lucille Conroy sued Anchor Savings Bank under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging age discrimination after her department was relocated and she was offered layoff instead of a Department Specialist position. Conroy, aged 56, was offered a transfer to Albion or a lower-grade Teller position in Bay Ridge, both of which she declined, opting for severance. A younger employee, Kissoon (age 34), was offered and accepted the Department Specialist position for which Conroy also believed she was qualified. The court, presided over by District Judge Johnson, granted summary judgment to Anchor Savings Bank, finding that Conroy established a prima facie case but failed to prove that age was a determinative factor or that Anchor's reasons for hiring Kissoon were pretextual. Anchor's motion for sanctions against Conroy's counsel was denied due to insufficient evidence of bad faith.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEAPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentWorkforce ReductionRelocationSanctions
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1994

Cruz v. Latin News Impacto Newspaper

The case involves an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning causes of action for libel and Civil Rights Law violations. The defendant, Latin News Impacto, a Spanish-language newspaper, published an article with the plaintiff's picture, describing her as having AIDS. At the time of publication, the plaintiff was HIV-positive and seriously ill with AIDS-related conditions, but did not formally meet the then-current Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definition of AIDS, although a new definition, effective weeks later, would have included her. The IAS Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact and that the article was of private concern. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that even if the statement about AIDS was not literally true at publication, the defendant did not act with gross irresponsibility given the plaintiff's undisputed AIDS-related illnesses and the imminent CDC definition change. Furthermore, the court found no unauthorized advertising use of the photo under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, as the article was on a matter of public interest and not an advertisement in disguise. A separate trespass cause of action was not appealed and remains viable.

LibelDefamationCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentAIDS/HIV Status DisclosurePublic Concern DoctrineGross Irresponsibility StandardFalse LightUnauthorized Use of Likeness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fioranelli v. News Building Corp.

Anthony Fioranelli sued News Building Corporation for injuries sustained during employment. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy because News Building Corporation was effectively the plaintiff's employer, New York News, Inc., due to corporate merger. Prior motions to dismiss on these grounds were denied on procedural issues. This court, however, found that New York News, Inc. was indeed the building's owner at the time of the accident under Business Corporation Law § 906(b)(2). Consequently, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided the plaintiff's sole remedy, dismissing the action against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation exclusivityCorporate mergerBuilding ownershipCPLR dismissal motionLaw of the Case doctrineBusiness Corporation LawEmployer liabilityPersonal injury claimProcedural lawSubstantive law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karian v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Plaintiff, a mechanic for M&G Convoy, Inc., was severely injured when an M&G employee, unaware of plaintiff's presence, moved a tractor-trailer plaintiff was working on at Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.'s terminal. A jury found Anchor 80% negligent and M&G 20% negligent under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, awarding $5,000,000. Anchor later settled with the plaintiff for $1,999,500, with M&G waiving its workers' compensation lien. The appellate court reviewed the apportionment of liability, finding sufficient evidence for negligence by both Anchor and M&G. The court determined the jury's apportionment was against the weight of the evidence and directed a new trial on liability apportionment unless parties stipulated to 80% liability for M&G and 20% for Anchor; Harold Henderson's appeal was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LienCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Apportionment of LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewSafe Place to Work DoctrineThird-Party ActionSettlement AgreementProximate CauseEvidentiary Rulings
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. 14-02-01252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2003

Anchor Fumigation & Pest Control, Inc. v. Conrad Cortes

Conrad Cortes (appellee) sued his former employer, Anchor Fumigation and Pest Control, Inc. (appellant), alleging disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation. A default judgment was entered against Anchor due to its failure to file an answer. Anchor appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial, arguing its failure to answer was due to mistake. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Anchor did not provide competent proof that its agent's failure to file an answer was accidental and not a result of conscious indifference, thus failing to meet the Craddock requirements for a new trial.

Default judgmentMotion for new trialAppellate reviewAbuse of discretionConscious indifferenceMistakeMeritorious defenseWorkers' compensation retaliationDisability discriminationTexas civil procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pease v. Anchor Motor Freight

Claimant, a truck driver for Anchor Motor Freight since 1969 and owner of a construction business since 1973, injured his back in 1976. A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his average weekly wage for workers' compensation, with claimant advocating for the "200 multiple" method under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). Anchor Motor Freight argued against this, citing claimant's voluntary limitation of employment due to his construction business. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the appellate court affirmed that claimant voluntarily limited his employment with Anchor, thus his average weekly wage should be based on actual earnings rather than the 200 multiple method. The court further clarified that conflicting dual employments where one limits availability for the other constitutes a voluntary limitation.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationVoluntary Limitation of EmploymentDual Employment ConflictWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(3)Disability ApportionmentPart-Time EmploymentConcurrent EmploymentEmployer Payroll RecordsUnion Rules ImpactJudicial Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2002

O'Gorman v. Journal News Westchester

Plaintiffs Dennis O'Gorman and his wife sued Jean Alcenat for personal injuries after a vehicle collision. They later added Journal News Westchester as a defendant, asserting vicarious liability as Alcenat was delivering newspapers for them. The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel based on a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination that Alcenat was an employee of Journal News. Journal News opposed, arguing Alcenat was an independent contractor and the WCB's finding wasn't dispositive for vicarious liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions, and the plaintiffs appealed the denial of their partial summary judgment motion. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the WCB's determination of an employer-employee relationship was a mixed question of law and fact, not purely evidentiary, and therefore not entitled to preclusive effect for vicarious liability purposes.

Collateral EstoppelVicarious LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorWorkers' Compensation BoardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMixed Question of Law and FactAdministrative Agency DeterminationPersonal Injury
References
15
Case No. 15-24-00081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2025

City of Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and the Dallas Morning News, Inc.

This appeal arises from a Texas Public Information Act (PIA) dispute between the City of Dallas and the Dallas Morning News. The City withheld information sought by the News, citing the PIA's litigation exception due to a pending HUD investigation into housing discrimination allegations by Darryl Baker. The Attorney General ruled the information public, as it had already been disclosed to HUD. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Dallas Morning News, compelling disclosure and awarding attorney fees. This appellate court affirmed, holding that the City waived its argument regarding potential litigation with Baker by failing to properly raise it to the Attorney General, as required by the PIA.

Public Information ActTexas Government CodeLitigation ExceptionWaiverAttorney General DecisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesOpen Records RequestHUD Investigation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Holcomb v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal by the Daily News regarding a Workmen's Compensation Board award of death benefits to the widow of John Holcomb. Holcomb, an employee of the Daily News, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a company delivery truck while being transported to work by a fellow employee. The appellants argued that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer was not contractually obligated to provide transportation. However, the Board found, and the Appellate Division affirmed, that a common and regular practice of employees transporting each other to work, knowingly acquiesced to by the employer for its own benefit, constituted an implicit assumption of responsibility for transportation-related risks. The court held that a frequent and regular practice of providing transportation, even if not contractually obligated, can render such transportation incidental to employment, making resulting injuries compensable.

Fatal AccidentTransportation to WorkEmployer AcquiescenceCommon PracticeCourse of EmploymentDeath BenefitsWorkers' CompensationImplied ContractGratuitous TransportationRisk Responsibility
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,009 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