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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01702 [203 AD3d 1618]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

Szymkowiak v. New York Power Auth.

Plaintiff Joseph Szymkowiak initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against New York Power Authority for workplace injuries sustained in two accidents. Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims or limit damages, specifically regarding a second accident. The Supreme Court partially granted the motion but denied dismissal for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and post-concussion syndrome damages. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, ruling that claims for post-concussion syndrome and a concussion condition were barred by collateral estoppel due to prior Workers' Compensation Board findings. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and allowed claims for headaches and the actual concussion to proceed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkplace AccidentPost-concussion SyndromeConcussion InjuryAppellate ReviewElevation-related RiskComparative FaultProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. 04-15-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

This is an opening brief from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. (Post Oak), appealing the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction by the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County. The case concerns the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's (the District) suit seeking a declaration that Post Oak's proposed landfill violates District Rule 8.1, even though Post Oak's permit application is still under review by the TCEQ. Appellants argue that the District's claim is not ripe, is impermissibly redundant of judicial review remedies, and that the District lacks standing due to a non-redressable injury. They contend that the TCEQ has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over landfill permitting and that District rules cannot supersede a TCEQ permit. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of the District's suit.

Environmental LawLandfill PermittingGroundwater ConservationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineStanding (Law)Exclusive JurisdictionPrimary Jurisdiction
References
195
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Budge v. Post

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant Troy V. Post’s motion for relief from a January 17, 1980 judgment, which awarded Plaintiff Donald Budge $455,041 for breach of contract. Post sought relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6), alleging newly discovered evidence that Budge had received funds from a Mexican bankruptcy settlement, which violated an assignment agreement within their 1978 contract. The Court found Post entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5), characterizing Budge’s receipt of funds as a setoff. The judgment was amended, reducing Budge's award by $26,080.73 to reflect the funds received.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)Motion for Relief from JudgmentBreach of ContractContractual AssignmentNewly Discovered EvidenceAccord and SatisfactionSetoffAmended JudgmentFederal Court PracticeCivil Procedure
References
53
Case No. E2012-01475-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

Richard Trehern v. State of Tennessee

Richard Trehern appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He claimed counsel failed to communicate adequately, attack his wife's credibility, advise on release eligibility, explain Momon consequences, and secure an expert witness for the shaken baby syndrome defense. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's decision, finding no deficient performance by trial counsel or resulting prejudice to Trehern. The court noted that counsel's decisions were strategic and based on thorough investigation, including consultation with medical experts who concurred with the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, and that Trehern himself declined to attack his ex-wife's credibility.

Post-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselShaken Baby SyndromeChild Abuse InvestigationExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityTrial Counsel StrategyCriminal AppealMedical Evidence ReviewDue Process Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. 2020-05-0177
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2020

Beech, John v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC.

This expedited hearing concerned John Beech's request for a psychiatric panel after sustaining a work-related injury on August 8, 2019, while working for G4S Secure Solutions. Mr. Beech was initially treated by neurologist Dr. Richard Rubinowicz, who recommended a referral to a neuropsychologist for his anxiety and post-concussion syndrome. G4S, the employer, failed to provide the requested panel, arguing it was not medically necessary or work-related. The Court determined that Mr. Beech is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits, finding G4S's arguments unpersuasive. Consequently, the Court ordered G4S to provide the psychiatric or neuropsychological panel and referred the case for compliance investigation.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsPsychiatric PanelNeuropsychological ReferralExpedited HearingPost-Concussion SyndromeAnxietyCausation DisputeMedical NecessityEmployer Obligations
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,825 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