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
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKnight v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff, previously injured in a work-related accident, sustained further personal injuries in a bus accident in 2010 and subsequently sued. A jury awarded her damages, including for past medical expenses, and past and future lost earnings. The defendants sought a collateral source setoff, arguing that the plaintiff's Workers' Compensation and Social Security disability benefits from her prior injury should reduce the award. While the Supreme Court initially denied this motion, the appellate court modified the judgment. The court reduced the awards for past and future lost earnings based on established Workers' Compensation benefits but denied a setoff for Social Security benefits and medical bills due to the defendants' failure to provide sufficient proof. As a result, the judgment was modified to reflect adjusted damages for lost earnings.

Personal InjuryDamagesLost EarningsMedical ExpensesCollateral Source RuleWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationEvidence Standards
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharrow v. Dick Corp.

This case involved an appeal where the court affirmed the validity of a 5-1 jury verdict, rejecting the defendants' claim of being deprived of a constitutional right to a jury of six. The court also found the defendants' argument regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) violations unpreserved for review. Critically, the court agreed with the plaintiff that the awarded damages for past and future pain and suffering were inadequate given the plaintiff's severe injuries, including a herniated disk leading to total disability and excruciating pain. Consequently, a new trial on damages for past and future pain and suffering was granted, contingent on the defendants' refusal to stipulate an increase in the verdict to $150,000 ($100,000 for past and $50,000 for future pain and suffering).

Jury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingHerniated DiskLabor LawAppellate ReviewVerdict ModificationStipulationMedical Expert TestimonyConstitutional Right to Jury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This opinion addresses an appeal from nine consolidated asbestos cases where a jury found liability but awarded no past damages to several plaintiffs. The court, HEDGES, Justice, reviewed the proper standard of appellate review for zero damages verdicts, distinguishing between objective and subjective symptoms of injury and adhering to the Pool v. Ford Motor Co. standard. The court upheld the jury's zero past damages awards for most plaintiffs, finding them not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it reversed the trial court's application of the statute of limitations to the Spikes family's claim, remanding it for further proceedings. Additionally, the court sustained the point of error regarding prejudgment interest calculation, ruling that under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., interest should accrue six months after the last day of asbestos exposure, rather than six months after the lawsuit filing date, and remanded the Burt and Friley cases for recalculation. The court also addressed, but did not rule on the merits of, an expert testimony admissibility challenge due to procedural errors by the plaintiffs.

Asbestos litigationzero damagesprejudgment interestappellate reviewcomparative negligencestrict liabilitylatent diseasestatute of limitationsexpert testimonymedical examination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrada v. Dillon

Dennis Dillon suffered severe injuries in a rear-end collision with a Lear Lines tractor-trailer driven by Manuel Estrada. Dillon and his worker's compensation carrier, CNA Insurance Companies, sued Estrada and Lear Lines. A jury found both parties 50% negligent and awarded Dillon damages for past pain, loss of earning capacity, and past medical expenses, but zero damages for other categories. The trial court partially granted a motion to disregard jury findings on past medical expenses, increasing the award. On appeal, Lear Lines challenged this, while Dillon and CNA cross-appealed the zero-damage findings. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the jury's zero-damage finding for past physical impairment against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and remanded the case for a new trial solely on damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceAppellate ProcedureJury VerdictDamagesMedical TreatmentPhysical ImpairmentMental AnguishWorker’s Compensation
References
12
Case No. 113 AD3d 1184
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

Vincent v. Landi

Plaintiff David Vincent fractured his ankle on black ice at defendant Angelo T. Landi's restaurant. A jury found Landi negligent and awarded damages for past pain and suffering and lost profits, but no future damages. Both parties cross-appealed, with plaintiffs arguing inadequate damages and defendant arguing insufficient proof of notice. The court affirmed the finding of negligence, citing defendant's actual knowledge of a recurring icy condition. However, the court found the jury's damage awards for past and future pain and suffering and lost profits to be inadequate, materially deviating from reasonable compensation. A new trial on damages was ordered unless defendant stipulated to increased awards for past pain and suffering ($75,000), future pain and suffering ($100,000), past lost profits ($54,017.50), and future lost profits ($203,018.85).

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilitySlip and FallBlack IceDamagesPain and SufferingLost ProfitsAnkle FractureOrthopedic Surgery
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2003

Baez v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered a judgment on or about July 16, 2003, upholding a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $380,000 for future pain and suffering. This judgment also brought up for review an order from November 26, 2002, which denied the defendants' motion to deem the damages verdict excessive. The plaintiff, a 56-year-old home-health-aide, sustained a severe comminuted midshaft humeral fracture in her right arm, requiring multiple surgeries including rod and plate placements, and extensive physical therapy. Despite healing, she was left with limited forearm rotation, numbness, hand weakness, and three large keloid scars. The court unanimously affirmed the damages awards, finding them to be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, referencing CPLR 5501 [c] and Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp.

Humeral fracturePain and sufferingDamages awardJury verdictAppellate affirmationSurgical interventionPhysical therapyKeloid scarsLimited range of motionMedical hardware
References
1
Case No. 08-05-00166-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2006

West Telemarketing Corporation Outbound v. Victoria McClure

Victoria McClure, an African American employee of West Telemarketing Corporation Outbound, sued West for employment discrimination under the Texas Labor Code. A jury found that discrimination was a motivating factor in West's decision not to promote McClure and her subsequent termination, awarding her damages for back pay, future lost wages, and past compensatory damages. West challenged these awards and attorney's fees, and also exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for employment discrimination, attorney's fees, past and future lost wages, and compensatory damages, but reversed and rendered that McClure take-nothing for the exemplary damages due to insufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference.

Employment discriminationRacial discriminationWrongful terminationDenial of promotionTexas Labor CodeCompensatory damagesLost wagesAttorney's feesExemplary damagesMalice standard
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 4,543 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