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. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05844 [198 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Morley v. BPP St Owner, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a seven-year-old child, JM, who sustained a thumb injury at an ice skating rink due to an alleged defect in the dasher boards. The child's parent, Risa Morley, filed a negligence action against BPP St Owner, LLC and IRE Crown Rinks, LLC, alleging negligent ownership, operation, and control of the rink, including negligent supervision and maintenance, and sought damages for post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating the claims for negligent assembly and maintenance of the dasher boards and the derivative loss of society. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent supervision and PTSD claims, finding insufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact.

NegligenceIce Skating RinkDasher BoardsSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryPTSDNegligent MaintenanceAppellate ReviewChild Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKethan v. McKethan

This case involves an appeal of a summary judgment granted against the parents of Paul McKethan, who sought exemplary damages for his death. Paul McKethan was killed in an accident while working for McKethan Vacuum Service, Inc. His parents sued the employer and two employees for gross negligence. Although Workers' Compensation benefits were paid, the parents pursued additional damages. The trial court ruled that under the Texas Constitution and relevant statutes (Tex.Const. art. XVI, sec. 26 and Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, sec. 5), parents are not considered 'heirs of the body' and thus cannot recover exemplary damages for the death of their adult child. The appellate court affirmed this decision, upholding the interpretation of the law regarding the class of individuals permitted to recover such damages.

Workers' CompensationGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathHeirs of the BodyStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentParental RightsTexas LawConstitutional Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenneth S. v. Berkshire Farm Center & Services for Youth

Kayla S., a 15-year-old under supervision, was admitted to Ellis Hospital, where Ray Kuykendall, a social worker, visited her against hospital rules. After her discharge, Kayla absconded from a different facility and allegedly endured abuse by Kuykendall for four months. Her parents sued Ellis Hospital, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court denied Ellis Hospital's motion to dismiss this claim. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, determining that Ellis Hospital’s actions did not unreasonably endanger Kayla’s physical safety. Furthermore, the court found that Kuykendall’s subsequent criminal assault constituted an independent act, breaking the necessary causal link between the hospital's alleged negligence and Kayla's injuries. Consequently, Ellis Hospital’s motion to dismiss the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim was granted.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceCausation BreakIntervening ActMotion to DismissHospital NegligenceMinor ProtectionSocial Worker MalpracticeAppellate ProcedureDuty of Care Scope
References
12
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Corp. v. Torres

This personal injury case stems from a refinery explosion in May 1999, which caused serious injuries to employees Daniel Torres, William Bourland, and David Natividad. The appellees sued the parent company, The Coastal Corporation (Coastal), asserting a negligence claim based on Coastal's alleged control over its subsidiary's (Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc.) budget and expenditures, specifically for safety maintenance. A jury found Coastal negligent and awarded substantial actual damages. On appeal, the court examined whether Texas law recognizes a cause of action against a parent company for negligent control of its subsidiary's budget, an affirmative undertaking, or negligent activity under these circumstances. Ultimately, the court concluded that existing Texas law does not impose liability on a parent company for failing to approve budgets for its subsidiaries to ensure premises defects are repaired, and therefore reversed and rendered the trial court's judgment.

Personal InjuryRefinery ExplosionCorporate NegligenceParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityNegligent ControlBudgetary ControlAffirmative ConductUndertaking LiabilityNegligent Activity
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1984

Grivas v. Grivas

An infant plaintiff, injured by a running lawnmower left unattended by her mother, initiated a negligence action. The complaint alleged negligent supervision and negligent operation of the lawnmower. Special Term dismissed the entire complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent supervision claim, citing Holodook v Spencer, which established parental immunity for claims based solely on negligent supervision. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the negligent operation claim, distinguishing it as a breach of duty owed to the world at large, not merely arising from the parent-child relationship. The case was remitted for trial to determine whether the negligent operation of the lawnmower was the proximate cause of the infant's injuries.

NegligenceParental LiabilityIntrafamily Tort ImmunityNegligent SupervisionDangerous InstrumentLawn Mower AccidentProximate CauseSummary JudgmentDuty of CareAppellate Decision
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,624 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