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. Cr. No. 03-1295
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2006

In Re Stabile

This case addresses the court's jurisdiction and available remedies concerning alleged improper interference with a court-appointed monitor. The Monitor, appointed in a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for the New York Racing Association (NYRA), petitioned the court against respondents Anthony A. Stabile and Stephen E. Saracco for attempts to improperly influence the Monitor after its term ended. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction under both an extension clause in the Appointing Order and ancillary jurisdiction. It also determined that the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)) was an appropriate basis for relief. The Monitor's request for an injunction against Saracco was denied, as his actions were deemed inappropriate but not severe enough to warrant an order, given his status as an attorney. However, an evidentiary hearing was ordered for Stabile to resolve disputed facts regarding his alleged threats and to determine the necessity of an injunction.

Court-appointed monitorDeferred prosecution agreementAll Writs ActSubject matter jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionInjunctionCriminal procedureCorporate malfeasanceInterference with court orderNew York Racing Association
References
40
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02631
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

Matter of Stabile v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Is., Inc.

Claimant Anthony Stabile, a nurse, experienced an unwitnessed cardiac arrest in his employer's parking lot after leaving work. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, and initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim, applying the presumption under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 due to the unwitnessed nature of the accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the employer and carrier successfully rebutted the presumption with a medical consultant's testimony. The consultant opined that Stabile's condition was due to preexisting conditions and not causally related to his work activities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that its findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the claimant failed to demonstrate a causal relation to work.

Workers' CompensationCardiac ArrestCausal RelationUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of PresumptionMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionsEmployment InjuryNurse
References
9
Case No. CV-23-1971
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Stabile

Claimant Anthony Stabile, a nurse, sought workers' compensation benefits after experiencing an unwitnessed cardiac arrest in his employer's parking lot. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim under the Workers' Compensation Law § 21 presumption. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption with medical testimony linking the cardiac event to claimant's preexisting conditions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that its findings were supported by substantial evidence and that claimant failed to prove a causal link between his condition and employment. The court emphasized that while the statutory presumption applies to unwitnessed accidents, it does not establish the occurrence of an accident itself and can be rebutted by contrary substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnwitnessed AccidentCardiac ArrestPreexisting ConditionsMedical EvidenceStatutory PresumptionRebuttal of Presumption
References
9
Case No. M2021-00927-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2022

James Williams v. Smyrna Residential, LLC

This appeal addresses the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in a wrongful death lawsuit. James Williams sued Smyrna Residential, LLC and Americare Systems, Inc., alleging their negligence led to his father's death in an assisted living facility. Defendants sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by the decedent's daughter, Karen Sams, who held a durable power of attorney. The Trial Court denied the motion, finding Sams lacked authority as her POA did not cover healthcare decisions, and the wrongful death beneficiaries were not bound. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that executing the arbitration agreement was a healthcare decision, which Sams' general POA did not authorize. Furthermore, the court clarified that wrongful death beneficiaries bring their own right of action and are not bound by agreements to which they were not parties.

Arbitration AgreementWrongful DeathPower of AttorneyHealthcare DecisionsAgency AuthorityAssisted Living FacilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewContract LawTennessee Supreme Court Precedent
References
33
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25022
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of Mountainside Residential Care Ctr. (S.O.)

Mountainside Residential Care Center petitioned for a guardian for S.O., an undocumented stroke patient needing Medicaid for care. The Supreme Court, Delaware County, appointed S.O.'s children, C.O. and S.O., Jr., as co-guardians of his property. The core issue was granting guardians authority to interact with federal immigration agencies (USCIS/ICE) to pursue Permanent Residence Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) status, essential for S.O. to qualify for Medicaid benefits. The court granted this authority, emphasizing the guardians' discretion and the sealed nature of the case, to allow the family to navigate the complex process for obtaining critical healthcare funding.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonsMedicaid EligibilityUndocumented ImmigrantsPRUCOL StatusImmigration LawHealth Care BenefitsElder CareFamily GuardiansCourt Orders
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22387 [77 Misc 3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2022

Singletary v. Residential Mgt. Inc.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a judgment against Residential Management Inc. et al., landlords, for civil penalties. The initial decision found the landlords liable for failing to correct housing violations, as established by tenant testimony, photographic evidence, and subsequent inspections by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The landlords' defense of lack of access was rejected, as the record indicated multiple access dates and testimony from their own workers inconsistent with denial of access. Furthermore, the court found the landlords' argument regarding the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause unpreserved and without merit, reasoning that the penalties served a remedial purpose to ensure compliance with housing standards. The court also determined that the penalty schedule was not grossly disproportionate to the offense, and landlords had the ability to mitigate fines by correcting violations promptly.

Housing ViolationsCivil PenaltiesLandlord LiabilityExcessive Fines ClauseEighth AmendmentAdministrative Code § 27-2115Lack of Access DefenseAppellate ReviewRemedial PurposeHousing Maintenance Standards
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. 05-21-00758-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2022

Yvette Branch v. Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage NRT Texas LLC, Full Scope Property Inspection PLLC

Yvette Branch appealed a trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees to Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, and NRT Texas, LLC. The case originated from a failed real estate transaction where Branch was the buyer and appellees represented the sellers. Branch subsequently sued the appellees, alleging various claims including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), fraud, trespass, and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all claims and awarded them attorney's fees. On appeal, Branch challenged the attorney's fee award, arguing it was not authorized by contract, not justified under the DTPA, and not reasonable or necessary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the attorney's fees were authorized by the 'related to this contract' clause in the real estate agreement and that the awarded amount was reasonable and necessary.

Attorney's FeesSummary JudgmentReal Estate ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActTrespass ClaimNegligence ClaimFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewTexas Civil PracticePrevailing Party
References
12
Case No. 04-12-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2013

John Homer Coonly (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) v. Gables Residential Services, Inc., D/B/A Gables West Avenue (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

John Homer Coonly appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Gables Residential Services, Inc., which resulted in Coonly taking nothing on his claims for negligence, premises liability, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Coonly's claims stemmed from the theft and vandalism of his motorcycles from the apartment parking garage owned by Gables. Gables filed a cross-appeal regarding the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on negligence and premises liability claims, finding the lease agreements validly waived such claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Coonly's DTPA claim, concluding that the waiver language in the agreements did not meet the DTPA's statutory requirements and Coonly's affidavit raised a material issue of fact regarding Gables' representations about the access gate.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPASummary JudgmentLease AgreementExculpatory ClauseWaiver of LiabilityAttorney's FeesContract Law
References
19
Case No. 03-98-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1999

Concho Residential Service, Inc. v. MHMR Services for the Concho Valley A/K/A Concho Valley Center for Human Advancement, in Its Capacity as an Unincorporated Association, Its Capacity as a Mental Retardation Authority, and as a Purported Community MHMR Center

Concho Residential Services, Inc. (CRS) sued MHMR Services for the Concho Valley and 22 others for damages and injunctive relief, alleging statutory and common-law causes of action. The trial court rendered summary judgment, which CRS appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment in part, finding that community centers are governmental entities entitled to sovereign immunity, thus dismissing antitrust, RICO, DTPA, and common-law tort claims. It also dismissed CRS's claim for injunctive relief due to lack of standing and claims under the Persons with Mental Retardation Act. The summary judgment for Hale County was also affirmed.

Antitrust ImmunityState Action ExemptionSovereign ImmunityMental Health ServicesMental Retardation ServicesCommunity CentersGovernmental EntitiesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStanding
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 316 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