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

O'Reilly v. Executone of Albany, Inc.

Plaintiff, a former marketing executive for Executone of Albany, Inc., alleged sexual harassment by co-workers and her supervisor, Michael Mahar, creating a hostile work environment and forcing her resignation. She also claimed battery by Stanley Groggins and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff asserted that Executone and its distributor company failed to take corrective action despite knowledge of the harassment. Following a motion by defendants to dismiss, Special Term denied the motion regarding the battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. This appellate court affirmed Special Term's order, finding two viable causes of action and upholding the denial of the dismissal motion.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentEmployment discriminationBatteryIntentional infliction of emotional distressMotion to dismissAppellate reviewCivil procedureTortsSupervisor liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownv. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

In this action, the plaintiffs sought to recover attorney's fees and costs from the defendant, United States Fid. and Guar. Ins. Co., incurred in defending a prior Federal court action initiated by the defendant. This Federal action was itself a consequence of the defendant's earlier breach of its duty to defend the plaintiffs in a negligence suit. Special Term denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, reiterating that expenses incurred in defending a declaratory judgment action brought due to an insurer's breach of the duty to defend are recoverable. The court distinguished this situation from prosecuting claims to establish coverage, emphasizing that the plaintiffs were defending their interests.

Attorney's FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendInsurance CoverageBreach of ContractIndemnificationAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissInsurer ObligationCosts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance

This appeal concerns a plaintiff's claim against a defendant insurance company regarding the reimbursement of a workers' compensation lien from a third-party settlement. The plaintiff, injured in a truck accident, received workers' compensation benefits, and the carrier, Royal Globe, filed a lien against a subsequent $98,000 common-law action settlement. Defendant, the truck's insurer, initiated an interpleader action, leading to a court order distributing the lien amount to Royal Globe and plaintiff's attorney. Plaintiff then sued to recover the $18,201.39 deducted for the lien, arguing that regulations and Workers' Compensation Law § 29 entitled him to full no-fault benefits for economic loss. The Appellate Division affirmed Special Term's denial of defendant's summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues regarding the settlement's terms and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment for an unpaid $3,201.39 plus interest.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LienNo-Fault BenefitsThird-Party SettlementGeneral ReleaseEconomic LossNoneconomic LossAttorney's FeesInterpleader ActionTriable Factual Issues
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1981

Taylor v. Libous

The petitioner, a motor equipment operator for the City of Binghamton, was discharged after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct following an altercation with a co-worker. He challenged the dismissal, seeking reinstatement or a hearing under Civil Service Law section 75, or adherence to the collective bargaining agreement grievance procedure. The city argued his guilty plea negated the grievance process and that section 75 was inapplicable due to the collective bargaining agreement. Special Term dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not pursuing the available grievance procedure.

Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesCivil Service LawDischarge from EmploymentDisorderly ConductGuilty PleaArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1982

Heritage v. Patten

Plaintiff Wayne D. Heritage, injured on the job, received workers' compensation benefits. He and his wife subsequently sued the defendant, the landowner and also the sole stockholder and CEO of Heritage's employer, under Labor Law sections 240 and 241. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing co-employee immunity under Workers' Compensation Law § 29, subd 6. Special Term denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to dismiss affirmative defenses. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the defendant was a co-employee and thus immune from suit under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision, granting summary judgment to the defendant and dismissing the complaint.

Co-employee immunityWorkers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyLandowner LiabilityCorporate Officer LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentAffirmative Defenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1980

Elting v. Will & Baumer Candle Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning a claim for medical services rendered to an injured employee. Edward Drake sustained an injury in 1970 while employed by Will & Baumer Candle Co., Inc. His case was settled in 1974 with a nonschedule adjustment and subsequently closed. An application to reopen the case in 1979 was denied by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Plaintiff, Dr. James Elting, sought to recover $96.08 from the employer and its carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, for medical services provided to Drake in early 1979 related to the 1970 injury. The Supreme Court at Special Term granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court holding that a physician's claim against an employer or carrier is only approvable if incidental to a compensation award, which was not the situation here as Drake's case was closed and the board refused to reopen it.

Workers' CompensationMedical Services ClaimClosed CaseSummary JudgmentAppealNonschedule AdjustmentReopening CaseEmployer LiabilityCarrier LiabilityPhysician Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fey v. Stengle

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an award against Kings Moving and Storage, Inc., requiring payments to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and Vocational Rehabilitation Fund, stemming from an accident involving the plaintiff’s decedent. This award established accident, notice, and causal relation to death, inferring the accident occurred during the decedent's employment with Kings. Subsequently, the Appellate Division found that the defendants' motion to renew their summary judgment application should have been granted following the Board's decision. Consequently, the court reversed the order denying the motion and remitted the matter to Special Term. The plaintiff was granted 20 days to amend their complaint to allege failure to secure compensation under Workers' Compensation Law Section 11; otherwise, summary judgment would be granted to defendants Kings and Stengle.

Workers' CompensationUninsured Employers' FundVocational Rehabilitation FundSummary JudgmentRemittalAppellate DivisionExclusive RemedyEmployment RelationshipPleading AmendmentCausal Relation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Canada Dry Bottling Co. of Buffalo, N. Y., Inc. & Mordino

The order of Erie Special Term, which granted a petitioner's motion for a stay of arbitration and denied a cross motion to compel arbitration and other relief, was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court also awarded $10 in costs and disbursements. The decision was unanimous, with Justices McCurn, Vaughan, Williams, Bastow, and Goldman presiding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsUnanimous DecisionErie Special Term
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1981

Bishop v. Workers' Compensation Board

The plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment against the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting its right to approve direct attorney fee payments by claimants even without a formal compensation award. The plaintiff, requiring medical care for work-related injuries but experiencing no lost time or earnings, questioned the board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law section 24, which she believed precluded attorney fees in her situation. Special Term dismissed the complaint, a decision affirmed on appeal, on the grounds that no justiciable controversy was presented. The appellate court emphasized that speculative interpretations of board policy are insufficient for a declaratory judgment and that matters under the Workers’ Compensation Law should first be resolved by the board, highlighting the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesDeclaratory JudgmentBoard InterpretationMedical BenefitsExhaustion of Administrative RemediesJusticiable ControversyJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWorkers’ Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Belle v. County of St. Lawrence

This case involves three consolidated actions arising from the temporary removal of two minor children, Randy and Jodi La Belle, by St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services and Massena police officers while their parents, Albert and Joyce La Belle, were on vacation. The parents (Action No. 1) sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil rights violations (42 U.S.C. § 1983). The children (Action Nos. 2 and 3) brought claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and civil rights violations. This appeal reviews the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints by the Supreme Court at Special Term. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the parents' entire action, certain civil rights claims against the County of St. Lawrence and the Village of Massena, and all punitive damages claims against municipalities and for State law claims in Action Nos. 2 and 3. The infant plaintiffs were left with causes of action for false arrest, false imprisonment, and section 1983 claims against the Department of Social Services and individual defendants, with punitive damages claims remaining only against individual defendants for the section 1983 causes of action.

Child ProtectionCivil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressGovernment ImmunityPunitive DamagesMunicipal LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,960 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