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

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2012

Ali v. State

The claimant appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims that dismissed their claim for personal injuries. The incident occurred on February 24, 2009, at the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board office when a security guard, reacting to news of his grandmother's death, punched a wooden bench causing it to fall on the claimant. The claimant subsequently filed a personal injury claim against the State of New York. The Court of Claims granted the defendant's application to dismiss the claim, determining that the security guard was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to his employment, and his conduct was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, thus precluding vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentForeseeabilityEmployee MisconductClaim DismissalCourt of Claims DecisionAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Second Injury Fund

Walter Johnson, who had previously lost vision in his right eye, suffered an injury at work resulting in the loss of vision in his left eye, leaving him totally and permanently disabled. He received benefits from Texas Employer’s Insurance Association and the Second Injury Fund. Johnson and his wife then sued Texas Industries, Inc. for negligence. Both TEIA and the Second Injury Fund intervened, seeking subrogation rights. The trial court denied the Second Injury Fund's claim to subrogation, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether the Second Injury Fund is subrogated to Walter Johnson's rights in his personal injury suit. The Court concluded that subrogation is a legislative creation and the statute funding the Second Injury Fund explicitly enumerates funding methods without including subrogation. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, denying subrogation for the Second Injury Fund.

SubrogationSecond Injury FundWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationExpressio Unius Est Exclusio AlteriusTotal DisabilityPersonal InjuryTexas Supreme CourtFunding MechanismsLegislative Intent
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Williams v. Brentwood Wholesale, Inc.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated April 6, 1998. The order had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order and judgment, concurring with the Supreme Court's decision. The basis for the affirmation was that the plaintiff's personal injury cause of action was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, citing the precedent set in Gonzales v Armac Indus., 81 NY2d 1.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyDamagesDismissalSupreme CourtProcedural History
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1963

Graham v. Morris

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment rendered for plaintiffs Dillard C. Morris and Jerry Morris following a collision between Jeff Graham's truck and Morris's tractor-trailer in Garza County, Texas. The jury found the truck driver negligent in multiple respects, proximately causing personal injuries to Jerry Morris and property damage, and found no contributory negligence by Morris. On appeal, defendants raised points concerning refusal of a trial amendment, an emergency defense, wording of jury issues, and improper jury argument, all of which were overruled. However, the appellate court found the jury's awards for Jerry Morris's personal injuries and future medical expenses to be excessive. The court mandated a remittitur of $22,000. Upon Jerry Morris filing the remittitur, the modified judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

CollisionProperty DamagePersonal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceProximate CauseEmergency DoctrineTrial AmendmentJury InstructionsJury Argument
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malburg v. Keller

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the Supreme Court granted this motion, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the court modified the order by denying the motion in part. It reinstated the amended complaint concerning the significant limitation of use category of serious injury for the plaintiff's cervical spine injury. This modification was based on an independent medical examination report establishing a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious InjuryInsurance LawCervical Spine InjuryRange of MotionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2003

Tempio v. City of Buffalo

Plaintiff, a civilian employee of the City of Buffalo Fire Department, initiated a personal injury action against the defendant, alleging liability under General Municipal Law § 205-a and respondeat superior. The plaintiff claimed injuries due to a fellow employee's negligence in violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that the plaintiff falls within the class of persons covered by section 205-a, as it applies to 'any officer, member, agent or employee of any fire department injured... while in the discharge or performance... of any duty.' Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's acceptance of workers’ compensation benefits does not preclude this action, citing that section 205-a grants recovery rights 'in addition to any other right of action or recovery under any other provision of law.'

Personal InjuryMunicipal LawRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationVehicle and Traffic LawEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFire Department
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Ozone Park Lumber

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting the motion and dismissing the third-party complaint. The court found that the third-party defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute "grave injuries" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the third-party plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuriesAppellate CourtReversalMotion GrantedDismissalDamages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delvalle v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC

In a personal injury action, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 15, 2013. The order granted summary judgment to the third-party defendants, Douglas S. Kent and King Freeze Mechanical Corp., dismissing the third-party complaint against them. The Supreme Court's decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff's injuries, sustained during employment with King Freeze Mechanical Corp., did not constitute a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, concluding that the third-party defendants met their prima facie burden and the defendants/third-party plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawContributionIndemnificationAppellate DivisionThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAffirmation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 19,116 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