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 18, 2005

Hotel 57 LLC v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff hotel sought over $300,000 for replacing 16 scratched windows, attributing the damage to the defendant's window cleaners. The defendant denied responsibility, suggesting the scratches were preexisting. Crucially, the plaintiff destroyed and replaced the windows without notifying the defendant, sixteen months prior to filing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on spoliation of evidence. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing the plaintiff's intentional destruction of evidence critical to the lawsuit, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentappellate reviewwindow damageproperty damageintentional destruction of evidencecivil procedureNew York lawconstructionnegligence
References
0
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaffer v. Benefit Plan of Exxon Corp.

Plaintiffs Phillip W. Schaffer and David W. Stiefel, former employees of Exxon, filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) after being denied disability benefits by the Benefit Plan of Exxon Corporation. Both plaintiffs sustained on-the-job elbow injuries. Defendant Exxon moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits was justified by substantial evidence, indicating that the plaintiffs were either not incapacitated or did not adhere to prescribed treatment plans. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and determined that the Plan Administrator's decisions were indeed supported by adequate evidence. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion StandardEmployee Benefit PlanPlan AdministratorMedical EvaluationWork-Hardening ProgramDenial of BenefitsJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. 2023-03-00982
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2025

Sanders, Brandy v. NORTHSHORE HEIGHTS ASSISTED LIVING

Northshore Heights filed a motion for summary judgment against Brandy Sanders, arguing a lack of evidence for a causal connection between her employment and injury. Ms. Sanders alleged a right wrist and back injury from moving a patient in October 2022 but couldn't recall the exact date and provided no medical evidence linking her injuries to employment. Her request to voluntarily nonsuit was denied due to the pending summary judgment motion, and her attorney's request for additional time to withdraw or substitute counsel was also denied as no formal motion was filed. The Court found Northshore Heights met its burden by demonstrating Ms. Sanders's insufficient evidence, and she failed to present specific facts to dispute causation, leading to summary judgment in favor of the employer and dismissal of her claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentCausationWorkers' Compensation ClaimDismissal with PrejudiceMedical EvidenceAttorney WithdrawalMotion PracticeProcedural RulesInsufficient EvidenceRight Wrist Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. Stephens

Alice Faye Dunn, surviving widow and heirs of Earnest Nebraska Dunn, appealed a summary judgment that favored defendants R. M. Stephens, Robert J. Sabinske, and National Development Company. The plaintiffs sought exemplary damages after Earnest Dunn was fatally run over by a winch truck driven by Stephens, an employee of Sabinske. The core of the appeal was whether genuine issues of material fact regarding gross negligence and proximate cause existed, challenging the trial court's summary judgment. The appellate court found that new evidence, an affidavit by witness Lloyd Dyess, introduced during the summary judgment hearing created conflicts of evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding gross negligence and conscious indifference. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the distinct burdens of proof in venue versus summary judgment hearings.

Gross negligenceExemplary damagesSummary judgmentProximate causeFact issuesVenueAffidavit evidenceConflicting testimonyWrongful deathRemand
References
6
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31964(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2008

Voultepsis v. Gumley-Haft-Klierer, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying a defendant's summary judgment motion and partially denying plaintiffs' motions regarding Labor Law claims, workers' compensation defense, and spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff, a superintendent, was injured in a fall from a ladder while replacing a floor in a cooperative apartment building, where the appellant served as the managing agent. The court found questions of fact regarding the appellant's statutory agency under Labor Law § 240 (1) and authority/notice under Labor Law § 200, thus affirming the denial of defendant's summary judgment. However, the court modified the order by granting plaintiffs' motion to strike the appellant's Workers’ Compensation Law defense, concluding the appellant lacked sufficient control over the plaintiff's work to be considered a special employer. The denial of the motion to strike the appellant's answer for spoliation was affirmed, as the appellant adequately explained its inability to find the requested documents.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation LawStatutory AgentSpecial EmployerSpoliation of EvidenceLadder AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saley v. Caney Fork, LLC

Plaintiff Keith R. Saley sued his former employer, Caney Fork, LLC, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the ADAAA, seeking back pay, benefits, and compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff, a general manager, was terminated shortly after undergoing a medical test and requesting a three-day lifting restriction due to diagnosed iron overload (hemochromatosis). Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, inadmissibility of certain evidence, and that Plaintiff failed to establish disability or causation for his claims. The court denied the defendant's motion, finding that subject matter jurisdiction existed and the contested evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding whether Plaintiff was regarded as disabled, whether his disability was a "but-for" cause of termination, and whether Defendant's stated reasons for termination were pretextual. The court also denied summary judgment on punitive damages, noting evidence suggesting Defendant acted with reckless disregard for federal law.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment RetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActSummary Judgment MotionPretextual ReasonsBut-For CausationIron Overload DisorderHemochromatosisCat's Paw LiabilityEEOC Investigation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drouillard v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

The Plaintiff brought claims of hostile work environment based on race and gender, as well as retaliation, against the Defendant employer. The court found sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment for the race-based hostile work environment claim, citing repeated use of racial epithets by a coworker, Elkilany. However, the court granted summary judgment for the gender-based hostile work environment claims, finding the allegations of sexual proposition and general use of 'bitch' insufficiently severe. All retaliation claims were also dismissed, as the Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her protected activities and the alleged adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, finding no evidence of malice or reckless indifference on the employer's part.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial HarassmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DiscriminationRacial SlursSexual Harassment AllegationsEmployer Liability
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. Michael Anthony George Construction Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion for partial summary judgment filed by multiple plaintiffs against landscaping and construction businesses and their owner, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law regarding unpaid overtime and retaliation. The Court denied summary judgment on the FLSA claim due to insufficient evidence of interstate commerce. However, partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on their state law overtime claims, as evidence showed they worked over forty hours without proper compensation. The employee status of three plaintiffs (Juan Castillo, Juan Leonel Lopez Juarez, and Jorge Mario Ramos Munoz) remained a disputed factual issue, exempting their claims from this partial judgment.

FLSANew York Labor LawOvertime CompensationWage and Hour DisputeSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityEmployee MisclassificationRetaliation ClaimInterstate Commerce RequirementPayroll Record Inadequacy
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 22,952 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