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

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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06663
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2021

Vargas v. Weishaus

Plaintiff, a forklift operator, alleged injury at his employer's premises due to a hole in the loading entrance/sidewalk. The premises were owned by defendant Corinne Weishaus and leased to plaintiff's employer, United Pickle Products Corporation. Defendant, an out-of-possession landlord, moved for summary judgment arguing she had no duty to maintain the premises, citing a lease placing maintenance responsibility on the tenant. Plaintiff countered that the accident occurred on the public sidewalk, implicating Administrative Code § 7-210, which imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners to maintain abutting sidewalks. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for defendant. The Appellate Division reversed, finding issues of fact as to whether the accident occurred within the defendant's property or on the public sidewalk, which would invoke the nondelegable duty under Administrative Code § 7-210.

Out-of-possession landlordSummary judgmentPremises liabilitySidewalk maintenanceAdministrative Code § 7-210Lease agreementDuty of careTriable issues of factForklift accidentProperty owner duty
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Watkins Salt Co.

The plaintiff commenced a wrongful death action after Donald Carpenter was killed in a mine owned by the defendant and leased to Cargill, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to provide a safe workplace and violated Labor Law regulations. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing no control over the mine's operation. The court treated this as a summary judgment motion. The primary issue concerned whether Labor Law sections 416 and 435 imposed a nondelegable duty on the mine owner to ensure safety. The court found that these sections establish an absolute and nondelegable duty, concluding that the complaint states a cause of action. The order granting summary judgment for the defendant was reversed.

Wrongful DeathMine SafetyLabor LawNondelegable DutySummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityLessee ResponsibilityStatutory InterpretationSafe Place to WorkAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action after being struck by an aerial lift truck operated by a coworker during the course of his employment. The defendant, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, had contracted with plaintiff's employer, Tamarack Forestry Service, Inc., to clear trees along its electric lines. Defendant had obtained a work permit from the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT), which the plaintiff argued constituted a contract that imposed a nondelegable duty to comply with worker safety regulations. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the DOT work permit was merely a license, not a contract, and therefore the defendant did not assume a nondelegable duty to the plaintiff. As a result, the defendant could not be held vicariously liable for the negligence of Tamarack Forestry Service, Inc., and the complaint against New York State Electric and Gas Corporation was dismissed.

Personal InjuryVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNondelegable DutyWork PermitLicenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityTree Trimming
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. a & T Transportation Co.

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned, prompting him and his family to sue his employer, A & Transportation Company, Inc. (A & T). The Allens alleged that A & T failed in its duty to warn or train Terry Allen about the specific handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted A & T's motion for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the Allens contended the trial court erred because the employer has a nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that A & T had no duty to instruct an experienced employee like Terry Allen in his chosen trade, especially since the dangers related to liquid loads were considered known in the profession and not unexpected.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnNegligence ClaimTrucking AccidentTanker Truck OperationsExperienced EmployeeNo-Evidence MotionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 06-01-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Terry Allen and Wife, Brenda Allen, Individually and A/N/F Matthew Allen, a Minor, Timothy Allen, a Minor and Jennifer Allen, a Minor v. a & T Transportation Company, Inc.

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned. He and his wife, individually and as next friends for their minor children, sued his employer, A & T Transportation Company, Inc., alleging that the company failed to warn or train him about the unique handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of A & T. On appeal, the Allens argued that the trial court erred because A & T had a mandatory and nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court found no legal authority supporting a duty for an employer to train an experienced individual in their chosen trade. The court concluded that the employer had no duty to instruct Terry Allen, thereby negating a necessary element of the Allens' negligence claim. Consequently, the summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer DutyNegligence ClaimTruck Driver InjuryTanker Truck AccidentPartial Load HazardDuty to WarnDuty to TrainExperienced Employee
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,120 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