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

Thomas v. Grigorescu

Plaintiffs, employees of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), were injured in an automobile accident while traveling in a taxi from their rail-yards to a hotel during a required layover in New York. They sought damages from Amtrak under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), arguing that Amtrak owed them a non-delegable duty to provide safe transportation. Amtrak moved for summary judgment, contending it had no duty of care and was not liable for the taxi’s negligence, as it neither selected the taxi nor had a contract with the taxi company. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Amtrak, ruling that while the taxi ride could arguably be within the course of employment, FELA requires employer negligence or negligence by its agents. Crucially, the court found no contractual relationship between Amtrak and KIG Taxi, thus precluding agency and liability for the taxi's actions, and rejected the creation of a non-delegable duty in this context.

Federal Employers' Liability ActSummary JudgmentCourse of EmploymentAgencyNon-delegable DutyRailroad LiabilityTaxi AccidentEmployee InjuryInterstate CarrierEmployer Negligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

May v. Scott

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiffs Max May and Billy Thompson and Defendant Lawrence Scott concerning Scott's acquisition of Memphis Equipment Company (MEC) and subsequent financial misconduct. Scott, then President of MEC, orchestrated the purchase of MEC stock from its Employee Stock Ownership Plan (MEC ESOP) in 1999 without the knowledge or approval of other board members, leading to allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA violations. The Court had previously granted partial summary judgment against Scott for breaching fiduciary duties under Tennessee law and for failing to disclose the stock purchase transaction under ERISA. Following a non-jury trial, the Court found Scott liable for wrongful conversion of MEC funds for personal use, awarding $172,203.66 in damages. Additionally, for ERISA violations related to the non-disclosure, Scott was found personally liable to restore $455,720.78 to the MEC ESOP, and his interest in the ESOP was forfeited. The Court also granted injunctive relief against Scott and awarded attorney's fees to the plaintiffs under ERISA.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Stock Ownership PlanCorporate GovernanceFraudulent ConcealmentConversionShareholder Derivative ActionInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2006

Flanagan v. United States

Plaintiff Brendan A. Flanagan sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for severe injuries sustained from a fall while performing boiler maintenance in the Dulski Federal Building in Buffalo, New York. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, citing sovereign immunity and the independent contractor exception. Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio recommended granting the motion, finding that the government had contractually delegated maintenance and supervision duties to a private contractor and did not control the plaintiff's work. The court further ruled that claims based on non-delegable duties or strict liability under New York Labor Law Section 240 are impermissible under the FTCA. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted the recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss and closing the case.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissNegligenceNon-delegable DutyStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryBoiler AccidentWorkplace Safety
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance Company a/s/o Robert and Joanie Emerson v. Martin Edward Winters, d/b/a Winters Roofing Company

The defendant contractor, Martin Winters of Winters Roofing Company, entered an agreement to replace a roof for homeowners Robert and Joanie Emerson. After the newly installed roof developed leaks, a subcontractor hired by Winters to make repairs caused a fire, resulting in over $871,069 in damages. Federal Insurance Company, as subrogor to the Emersons' rights, sued Winters for negligence and breach of contract. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, holding that the defendant had an implied non-delegable contractual duty to perform the roofing services in a careful, skillful, diligent, and workmanlike manner, a duty which was not discharged by delegating the work to a subcontractor. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Contract LawNon-delegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityBreach of ContractImplied DutyWorkmanlike MannerConstruction ContractsRoofing ServicesSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Kroger Co. v. Christopher Milanes

Christopher Milanes, an employee of The Kroger Company (a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance), sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of three fingers, while operating a defective bone-in band saw. Milanes alleged that Kroger breached its duties to provide a safe workplace, proper training, and safe equipment, and failed to adequately maintain the saw despite prior reports of issues like dull blades, wobbling, and an inoperable blade guard. The trial court submitted the case to the jury on a general negligence theory, finding Kroger liable and awarding Milanes over $1 million in damages. On appeal, Kroger contended the case should have been submitted on a premises liability theory and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for causation and lost earning capacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Kroger owed continuous, non-delegable duties as an employer, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence and damages.

Employer NegligenceWorkplace InjuryNon-subscriber EmployerIndustrial Equipment SafetyDuty to TrainDuty to Maintain Safe EquipmentProximate CauseLoss of Earning CapacityAppellate AffirmationTexas Law
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stein v. J.C. Penney Co.

Plaintiff Donald H. Stein, a former employee of J.C. Penney Company, filed an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) seeking overtime pay. Stein, a senior merchandising manager, argued that his actual duties were nonexempt despite his job title. The defendant contended that Stein's position was properly exempt as an executive role. The Court, considering factors like staffing and Stein's management style, concluded that any non-exempt work performed was largely due to Stein's inability to delegate tasks. Applying FLSA exemptions and regulations, the Court determined that Stein's primary duty was management. Therefore, the Court ruled that Stein's position was correctly classified as exempt and entered judgment in favor of J.C. Penney Company.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayExempt EmployeeExecutive ExemptionManagement DutiesDelegation of WorkPrimary Duty TestRetail IndustryWage and Hour LawsEmployment Litigation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Club, Inc. v. Ramirez

This concurring opinion by Justice Brister, joined by Chief Justice Jefferson, elaborates on why the Texas Supreme Court rejects adopting a blanket rule from *Dupree v. Piggly Wiggly Shop Rite Foods, Inc.* regarding employer liability for independent contractors in security services. The opinion discusses existing exceptions to the general rule that employers are not liable for independent contractors' actions, including retained control, statutory duties, and inherently dangerous work. It argues against a new 'personal character' exception for security services due to sufficient public safety protections under current laws, the unclear boundaries of such an exception, the varied circumstances of hiring security, the non-delegable duties of peace officers, and the multiple considerations in choosing independent contractors beyond avoiding vicarious liability.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilitySecurity ContractorNon-delegable DutyRestatement of TortsTexas LawTort ExceptionsCommon Law DevelopmentJudicial Restraint
References
17
Case No. 06 CV 4345
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. United States

Plaintiff Oscar Fraser sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries sustained on a construction site at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Fraser, a construction worker employed by Cooper Construction Inc., was injured when a concrete capstone fell from a forklift, causing his makeshift scaffold to collapse. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Cooper Construction was an independent contractor. The Court found that the contract clearly delegated control and liability for safety and daily operations to Cooper. The Court also noted that the Government's general oversight and contractor selection are discretionary functions, and the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for state law non-delegable duties. Consequently, the Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Construction Site SafetyPersonal Injury ClaimGovernment LiabilityContractual ResponsibilityDiscretionary Function Exception
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

McNulty v. City of New York

This dissenting opinion addresses the legal duty of physicians and hospitals to non-patients in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff Mary Ann McNulty sued several doctors and hospitals after contracting meningococcal meningitis from her friend, Robin Reda, following alleged misinformation and failure to warn about prophylactic treatment. The dissent argues that expanding a physician's duty beyond the established physician-patient relationship to a non-patient friend creates an unmanageable and potentially limitless scope of liability, citing precedent that narrowly defines such duties even for immediate family members. It contends that the hospitals' voluntary undertaking to contact at-risk individuals did not create a legal duty of care to Ms. McNulty. Therefore, the dissenting judge would dismiss all claims against the physicians and hospitals involved.

Medical MalpracticeMedical NegligenceDuty of CarePhysician-Patient RelationshipContagious DiseaseMeningitisSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityForeseeability
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 6,582 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