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
May 24, 1995

Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the employment status of a claimant who was injured while working at Westwood Pharmaceuticals. The claimant was generally employed by Manpower, Inc., a temporary employee supplier. Westwood contended that it was the claimant's special employer, limiting her remedy to workers' compensation. The Board initially found that Westwood's control was insufficient to establish a special employment relationship, ruling Manpower as the sole employer. Both Westwood and Manpower appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's findings, concluding that the evidence demonstrated Westwood exercised exclusive control and supervision over the claimant's activities, thereby establishing a special employment relationship. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision.

Special EmploymentTemporary EmployeeWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityControl TestDual EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2004

Laratro v. City of New York

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a tort claim against a municipality for injuries sustained due to a failure to provide emergency assistance, a governmental function typically protected by immunity. The dissent argues that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'special relationship' with the municipality, specifically the 'direct contact' element, as contact was made by a coworker rather than the injured party. The opinion emphasizes that expanding the definition of direct contact to include non-family or non-contractual third parties should be a legislative or higher court decision due to the lack of precedent and potential for significantly increased municipal liability. The majority, however, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the municipal defendants' motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Special relationship doctrineMunicipal immunityDirect contactEmergency services liabilityTort lawSummary judgmentNew York appellate courtGovernmental functionCoworker contact
References
25
Case No. 10-96-146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1997

William T. Dub Draper v. Rockett Special Utility District

William T. "Dub" Draper sued his former employer, Rockett Special Utility District, for wrongful discharge, alleging both retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim and breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for Rockett on both claims and imposed discovery sanctions against Draper. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding that Rockett's administrative policies did not alter the at-will employment relationship. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that material fact issues existed regarding Draper's alleged misconduct and his ability to perform job functions. The appellate court also upheld the discovery sanctions imposed by the trial court, deeming them just and serving the legitimate purposes of discovery sanctions. The retaliatory discharge claim was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentDiscovery SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
23
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smallwood v. Mereda Realty Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the employment relationship of a building superintendent, the claimant, who sustained injuries. The Board determined that the claimant was both a general employee of Pueblo Nuevo Associates, the building owner, and a special employee of Mereda Realty Corporation, the managing company, holding both entities 50% liable for the claim. The claimant appealed this determination, specifically contesting the employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of a general employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates, even though other evidence could have supported a different conclusion.

Employment RelationshipGeneral EmployeeSpecial EmployeeDual EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionBuilding SuperintendentRent-free Apartment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1961

SPECIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY OF TENN. v. Jennings

Sixty-two striking employees of Special Products Company claimed unemployment benefits after their jobs were filled during a labor dispute. The Commissioner and Board of Review allowed these claims, a decision upheld by the Chancery Court of Hamilton County. Special Products Company appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, arguing against benefit payments and seeking a non-charge against its experience rating. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree, ruling that the disqualification for a labor dispute ceased once the strike was abandoned and employees sought re-employment. The Court found that the subsequent unemployment was due to the unavailability of jobs, not the strike itself, thereby entitling the former employees to benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeStrikeJob ReplacementsEmployment Security ActVoluntary Quitting DisqualificationMisconduct DisqualificationExperience Rating PenaltySupreme Court DecisionStrike Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2000

Syku v. La Barranca Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a general employee of Vikrok Associates, was injured while working on premises owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the plaintiff was a special employee, thereby invoking the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court finding that the defendant controlled the plaintiff's work and directly paid him, thus establishing a special employment relationship. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, upholding the defendant's defense under the Workers' Compensation Law.

personal injuryspecial employmentworkers' compensationsummary judgmentliabilitygeneral employerappellate reversalpremises liabilitytort lawthird-party plaintiff
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,447 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