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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00652
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Froehlich v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision

Petitioner Jason Froehlich, a correction sergeant, was injured while attempting to subdue a combative parolee. Following a year of workers' compensation leave, his employment was terminated by respondent, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. Froehlich argued he was entitled to a two-year leave of absence, asserting his injuries resulted from an assault during employment. Respondent denied this, defining "assault" as an intentional physical act of violence directed toward an employee, and found no evidence the parolee intentionally directed violence at Froehlich. The Supreme Court dismissed Froehlich's CPLR article 78 petition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that respondent's definition of assault was rational and its application to the facts, finding no intentional physical act directed at Froehlich, was also rational. A dissenting opinion argued that the inmate's actions, under respondent's own definition, constituted an assault.

Civil Service Law § 71workers' compensation leavedisability leaveassault in employmentintentional physical act of violenceCPLR article 78 proceedingadministrative determinationrational basis reviewarbitrary and capriciouscorrection sergeant
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security Insurance Co. v. Nasser

This is a workers' compensation case on remand from the Supreme Court, concerning Izzat Nasser, a worker assaulted on the job by a third party, Victor Daryoush. The central legal question revolves around whether Nasser's injury was sustained in the course of his employment, specifically addressing the 'personal-animosity' exception under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Supreme Court previously ruled the exception inapplicable, citing that the assault was incidental to Nasser's employment duties and Daryoush's mental incapacity to form rational intent. This court now reviews factual sufficiency and other points raised on remand. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the injury occurred in the course of employment and that Daryoush lacked rational intent at the time of the assault.

Workers' CompensationAssaultCourse of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionRational IntentMental IncapacityRemandFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictTexas Law
References
10
Case No. SRO 0088351
Significant
Mar 20, 2002

Cheryl Coldiron vs. Compuware; Permissibly Self-Insured, by And through Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Adjusting Agent

The board issues a notice of intent to sanction a third-party administrator for failing to disclose the correct insurance carrier for over six years and schedules a conference to clarify the employer-insurer relationship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn BancPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermissibly Self-InsuredThird-Party AdministratorHigh Self-Insured RetentionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Excusable Error
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hudson v. State

Cynthia Ann Hudson was convicted of capital murder for the death of her adopted son, Samuel, who died from blunt force trauma and starvation after prolonged abuse. Hudson appealed, raising nine points of error, including challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for intent to kill and kidnapping, constitutional arguments against the kidnapping statute, and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The appellate court found the evidence sufficient to support the jury's findings on intent to kill and kidnapping and rejected Hudson's constitutional challenges. However, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, concluding that Hudson was harmfully denied a jury instruction on manslaughter, as there was evidence from which a rational jury could have found she acted recklessly. This decision highlights the legal distinction between intentional murder and reckless manslaughter in the context of child abuse.

Capital MurderKidnappingManslaughterLesser-Included OffenseChild AbuseBlunt Force TraumaStarvationEvidentiary SufficiencyIntent to KillParental Rights
References
51
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, et al., Applicants vs. THE BICYCLE CASINO; ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT, et al., Defendants

The Appeals Board consolidates two cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesImproper MotiveFrivolousUnnecessary DelayPetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWillful Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ8965291; ADJ10451326; ADJ10750348; ADJ15382349; ADJ15382351; ADJ16951068; ADJ16951573; ADJ16953628; ADJ16953629; ADJ16124753; ADJ16124750; ADJ17290772; ADJ16953860
Significant

Alfredo Ledezma, et al. vs. Kareem Cart Commissary and Mfg, State Compensation Insurance Fund, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates eight cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for a pattern of filing frivolous petitions for reconsideration with the intent to delay trial proceedings.

WCABen bancconsolidationsanctionscostsattorney's feesremovalreconsiderationLabor Code section 5813willful intent
References
12
Case No. ADJ13332737, ADJ15218980, ADJ12640295
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

ABEL HIDALGO, et al. vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board consolidates three cases to address sanctions against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the intent to disrupt or delay trial proceedings, issuing a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs.

En BancSanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesLabor Code 5813Willful IntentImproper MotiveFrivolousDelay TacticsPetition for Reconsideration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prave v. State

The State of New York appealed 17 separate orders from the Court of Claims that denied its motion for summary judgment in actions alleging intentional assault stemming from the Attica uprising. The State contended that the claimants' acceptance of workers' compensation benefits barred their intentional tort claims, constituting an election of remedies. Claimants argued they never applied for benefits and should not be bound by such an election. The Appellate Division held that accepting benefits, even if initiated by the employer, generally precludes a subsequent tort action if the Workers' Compensation Board determined the injuries were compensable. To pursue their tort claims, claimants must first seek to rescind the Board's prior determination that their injuries were accidental. Therefore, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court's orders, granted summary judgment to the State, and dismissed the claims without prejudice for claimants to seek a redetermination from the Workers' Compensation Board.

Attica UprisingWorkers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral AttackWorkers' Compensation BoardRescission of AwardElection of RemediesCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695) ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696) ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)
Regular
Sep 23, 2010

JERRY P. WILLIAMS vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) for failing to provide a computer printout of benefits. SCIF objected, asserting the printout was available at a prior Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) with a former attorney. Although the printout was not explicitly mentioned in the MSC pre-trial statement or offered at trial, the WCAB accepted SCIF's representation of its availability. Consequently, finding no willful failure to comply with a regulatory obligation, the WCAB dismissed the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNotice of Intention To Impose SanctionsWCAB Rule 10607computer printout of benefitsMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Desiree A. Mercadopre-trial conference statementproposed exhibitsEAMSwillful failure to comply
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,841 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