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

Ciapa v. Misso

Plaintiff initiated a personal injury action after sustaining injuries from a slip and fall while working as a "prep man" at a pizzeria. The plaintiff was employed by 395 Shanley Corp., which was also sued along with Otto Misso, the owner of the property and the president/sole shareholder of Shanley Corp. The case revolved around Misso's motion for summary judgment, arguing protection under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. The Supreme Court granted Misso's motion, and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that both the employer (Shanley Corp.) and its alter ego (Misso) were shielded from tort liability under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29(6). The court emphasized that an employer cannot be held liable as a landowner for job-related injuries to an employee on its property, and this protection extends to entities considered alter egos of the employer.

Personal InjurySlip and FallExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityAlter EgoLandowner LiabilityCo-employee ImmunityAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marin v. San Martin Restaurant, Inc.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, and his wife initiated the action after the worker allegedly sustained injuries while lifting an overloaded garbage bag from the defendant's restaurant. They claimed the defendant created a dangerous condition and failed to provide a safe place to work. The appellate court determined that the hazard of lifting heavy garbage bags is inherent in a sanitation worker's duties and that an owner typically does not owe a duty to protect employees from hazards stemming from a contractor's methods without supervisory control. Given that the injured plaintiff opted to perform his task without assistance despite having resources, the court reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaint.

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerSummary JudgmentAssumption of RiskWorkplace HazardOwner LiabilitySupervisory ControlAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2002

Fabriziov v. City of New York

Plaintiff, a licensed electrician and part owner of a third-party defendant company, sustained personal injuries after falling into an open manhole at a sewage treatment plant construction site on Wards Island. Plaintiff claimed protection under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) but denied it for Labor Law § 241 (6), also denying plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court modified the order, dismissing the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) and affirming the rest. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was not a protected worker under the Labor Law sections at the time of the accident, as he was merely inspecting the site to estimate costs for future work rather than performing repair or other listed activities.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentWorker ClassificationAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityScope of WorkInjury Claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. 310 West 38th, L.L.C.

This case concerns a laborer who suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The defendant-appellant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), contending it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, which would invoke the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The motion court correctly rejected this argument, noting the lack of evidence demonstrating the employer's complete domination and control over the appellant's operations. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, confirming the plaintiff's protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) given his engagement in painting a building at the time of injury. Additionally, an appeal regarding a motion to renew and reargue was unanimously dismissed as it stemmed from a nonappealable order.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor Law ComplianceWorkers' Compensation BarAlter Ego DefenseAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyStatutory ProtectionNonappealable Order
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 21,076 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