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

Sanchez v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Plaintiff Sanchez filed a negligence action against defendant National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) and another entity, alleging injury on February 10, 2005. Amtrak moved for summary judgment, asserting the accident occurred on February 5, 2005, making the claim untimely. Plaintiff's verified complaint and bill of particulars, along with workers' compensation records, stated the injury date as February 10, 2005. While Supreme Court and the Appellate Division initially dismissed the complaint, the higher court reversed, determining that the conflicting proof regarding the incident date presented a material issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was deemed unwarranted, and the plaintiff's complaint was reinstated.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentNegligence ActionPersonal InjuryVerified PleadingsAccident Date DisputeWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewIssue of FactReinstatement of Complaint
References
5
Case No. 04 Civ. 5760
Regular Panel Decision

Cevasco v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

This consolidated case involves personal injury lawsuits against National Railroad Passenger Corp. ("Amtrak") stemming from a 2004 crane accident in the East River Tunnel. Amtrak sought indemnification from third-party defendants Crescent Contracting, STV, Inc., Hatch Mott MacDonald, Inc. ("HMM"), and STV/HMM based on contractual provisions. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) suggesting that Amtrak's motions for partial summary judgment on indemnification be granted and HMM's cross-motions for summary judgment be denied. The District Court, finding no clear error, adopted the R&R, concluding that the indemnification clauses in the contracts are broad and enforceable, covering injuries that "arose out of" the work performed by the third-party defendants, even if the direct cause originated externally.

personal injuryindemnificationsummary judgmentcontract disputeworkplace accidentrailroad accidentconstruction managementjoint venture liabilitythird-party claimDistrict of Columbia law
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyant v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

The plaintiffs, Susan and Edward Wyant, sought to amend their personal injury complaint to include Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as an additional defendant and to remand the case to state court. Defendant Amtrak opposed, requesting to amend its notice of removal for an alternative federal jurisdiction basis. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add Nelson Maintenance, finding it a proper party. Since Nelson Maintenance's joinder destroyed diversity jurisdiction, the case was remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County. Amtrak's request to amend its notice of removal to add a federal question jurisdiction basis was denied as untimely.

JoinderDiversity JurisdictionRemandFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20Personal InjuryFederal Question JurisdictionNotice of RemovalAmendment of PleadingsSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giambalvo v. National RR Passenger Corp.

The plaintiff, Mr. Giambalvo, a lamp technician employed by Knight Maintenance Corporation, sought recovery for personal injuries after falling from a ladder while changing a lightbulb at a Chemical Bank branch in Two Penn Plaza. The lawsuit, initially filed in New York Supreme Court, was removed to federal court due to the involvement of Defendant Amtrak, a federal corporation. Mr. Giambalvo alleged negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 against Amtrak and other defendants. The Court granted Amtrak's motion for summary judgment on all claims, concluding that changing a lightbulb constituted routine maintenance, not "repairing" or "construction work" covered by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that Amtrak exercised control over the worksite or had notice of any defect regarding the ladder for the Labor Law § 200 claim. As a result, the federal court dismissed the claims against Amtrak and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, remanding them to state court.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentLabor LawLadder FallRoutine MaintenanceConstruction WorkFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemand
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Plaintiff Nathaniel Henderson sued National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained after being struck by a train due to alleged negligence. Amtrak filed a motion in limine to preclude Henderson from presenting evidence related to negligence claims, arguing they were preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., denied Amtrak's motion. The ruling clarified that the FRSA's preemption clause applies only to state laws, not federal claims under FELA, and that the two federal statutes complement each other.

FELA ClaimsFRSA PreemptionRailroad NegligenceFederal Statutory ConflictIn Limine Motion DenialRoadway Worker SafetyStatutory InterpretationFederal Common LawWorker InjurySupreme Court Guidance
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Plaintiff Ian E. Lewis sued his employer, National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) after being shot by his brother at work. The case centered on whether Amtrak acted reasonably to ensure Lewis’s safety after receiving warnings about the threat. Amtrak sought to limit its liability under CPLR article 16 by apportioning fault to the nonparty shooter, despite not pleading it as an affirmative defense. The court denied Amtrak's application, ruling that CPLR article 16 is a substantive State law that cannot diminish the Federal rights provided by FELA. The decision emphasized FELA's broad remedial purpose to ensure liberal recovery for injured railroad workers and shift the burden of loss to carriers.

Federal Employers’ Liability ActFELACPLR article 16Apportionment of liabilityNegligent tortfeasorIntentional tortfeasorPersonal injuryRailroad workerPreemptionSubstantive law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hubicki v. Amtrak National Passenger Railroad

Plaintiff Joanna Hubicki, pro se, sued National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak and The Travelers Insurance Company for allegedly denying medical benefits without explanation and violating COBRA notice provisions. Hubicki, a former Amtrak employee, claimed defendants failed to provide requested COBRA information and cut short her health coverage. Amtrak moved for summary judgment, and Travelers' motion to dismiss was treated as a summary judgment motion. The court found that Hubicki received all due medical payments and that Travelers timely sent COBRA information, providing more benefits than required. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of both defendants, though the court noted the defendants' poor communication regarding policy benefits.

ERISACOBRAHealth Insurance BenefitsSummary JudgmentPro Se PlaintiffDisability BenefitsEmployee BenefitsNotice RequirementsFormer EmployeeMedical Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Hartnett

Petitioners, including National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and Humphreys & Harding, Inc., challenged a determination that the West Side Connection Project, a new railroad line in New York City, was subject to New York State's mandatory prevailing wage rate statute (Labor Law § 220). The project, involving state and federal funding, aimed to consolidate Amtrak services at Pennsylvania Station. The central issue was whether Amtrak, a private for-profit corporation, constituted a 'public agency' and if the project qualified as 'public works' under the statute. The court determined that Amtrak's activities are not government acts and the project's primary function is private, despite its public purpose and funding. Consequently, the court annulled the determination that the project was a public works and granted the petitioners' requests.

Public WorksPrevailing WageLabor LawAmtrakRailroadGovernment ContractCPLR Article 78Private Corporation StatusState FundingStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurtin v. National RR Passenger Corp.(Amtrak)

Dido Kurtin, an employee of George Campbell Painting Corporation, sustained injuries after falling from Hell’s Gate Bridge. Amtrak, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, brought a third-party action against Campbell, who then initiated a fourth-party action against its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, seeking a declaration of coverage under its commercial general liability (CGL) policy. The central issue was whether painting operations fell under the CGL policy’s railroad exclusion for "construction or demolition operations." The court examined contract interpretation principles and the definition of "construction work" under New York labor regulations. Ultimately, the court determined that painting was not encompassed within the plain and ordinary meaning of "construction" for the purpose of the exclusionary clause, ruling that Liberty Mutual was obligated to defend and indemnify Campbell.

Insurance DisputeContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyRailroad ExclusionPainting OperationsConstruction DefinitionIndemnificationDuty to DefendNew York LawLabor Law Regulations
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. New York City Housing Auth.

Plaintiff National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) sued New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and Robert Born Assocs. (Born) to recover costs for removing asbestos-containing material (ACM) from their buildings that was flaking onto Amtrak's tracks. Amtrak asserted claims under CERCLA, private nuisance, trespass, restitution, indemnity, breach of covenants, and building code violations. Defendants moved to dismiss these claims. Born also filed third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against previous owners and lessees, Motel Defendants and Travelodge, which also faced motions to dismiss. The court largely denied the motions to dismiss, confirming the applicability of CERCLA to the asbestos release. However, Amtrak's claim for nuisance based on ultrahazardous activity was dismissed, as were Born's corresponding third-party claims and Travelodge's counterclaim against NYCHA.

Environmental LawCERCLASuperfundAsbestos ContaminationHazardous SubstancesPrivate NuisanceTrespassRestitutionIndemnityBreach of Covenant
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 100 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