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

P.T. & E. Co. v. Beasley

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action stemming from a fatal collision between a truck-tractor driven by appellant Wyman Lee Scroggins and a pickup truck driven by James F. Beasley. The heirs of James F. Beasley (appellees) sued Scroggins and P.T. & E. Company (appellants) for common law negligence, wrongful death, and survival statutes. The jury found Scroggins negligent and awarded damages, but the trial court initially disregarded awards for mental anguish. Appellants' points of error challenging liability, damages, and jury misconduct were overruled. Appellees cross-appealed the denial of mental anguish damages. The appellate court reinstated the jury's award for mental anguish damages for the spouse, children, and mother of the deceased, citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent extending such recovery, and affirmed the judgment as reformed.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligenceJury MisconductDamagesMental AnguishLoss of ConsortiumPecuniary LossAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1989

Trevino v. Lightning Laydown, Inc.

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action following the death of Jose Trevino in a collision caused by a detached trailer. The appellants sued International Bank of Commerce (IBC) and several other defendants, who settled. A jury found IBC five percent at fault due to negligence and conscious indifference, but declined to award exemplary damages, while the settling defendants were ninety-five percent at fault. The trial court limited IBC's liability to five percent of actual damages. On appeal, the appellants argued that IBC's gross negligence should make it liable for the entire damages, contending that gross negligence is a distinct cause of action not subject to comparative negligence statutes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that gross negligence is not a "theory other than negligence" within the meaning of Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. and that the comparative negligence framework was correctly applied to reduce IBC's liability.

wrongful deathsurvival actionnegligencegross negligencecomparative negligenceexemplary damagesMary Carter settlementjoint tortfeasorsproduct liabilityappellate decision
References
18
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1997

Sidor v. Zuhoski

This case involves appeals from an order concerning two related actions: one for personal injuries (Action No. 1) and another for wrongful death (Action No. 2). Joseph and Gregory Zuhoski appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1. Separately, Colin Van Tuyl, as Executor of the Estate of Janet A. Van Tuyl, and Brianna and Colin Van Tuyl, individually, appealed both the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion and the granting of Martin Sidor & Sons, Inc.'s motion to amend its answer in Action No. 2. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, noting the trial court's sound discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly when the failure to deny allegations was an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, the court found an issue of fact regarding Gregory Zuhoski's employment status at the time of the accident, which justified the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppealPleading AmendmentDiscretion of Trial CourtWorkers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentAppellate DivisionSuffolk County Litigation
References
12
Case No. Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Koren v. Zazo

David Koren, plaintiff in Action No. 2, sued Vivaldi, Inc. following a motor vehicle accident, alleging John Zazo, the driver, was a Vivaldi employee acting within the scope of his employment. Vivaldi moved for summary judgment, asserting Zazo was an independent contractor. Vivaldi provided evidence of Zazo's compensation by commission, self-sourced clients, lack of expenses or benefits, and 1099 tax form issuance, consistent with independent contractor status. The court found this evidence sufficient to establish Zazo as an independent contractor, thereby absolving Vivaldi of liability for his negligent acts. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment to Vivaldi and third-party defendant Ford Motor Credit Company was reversed, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and third-party complaint in Action No. 2.

Independent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentVicarious LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York Law1099 Tax Form
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2005

Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 v. Schwartz

This case consolidates two appeals arising from a 1985 real estate exchange involving Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 AFL-CIO (TWU) and 80 W.E.T.H. Corp. (80 WETH). Action No. 1 targeted real estate agents Alan G. Schwartz, Glen Allen Associates, Ltd., and Glen Equities, Ltd. for breach of fiduciary duty, contract, and constructive fraud. Action No. 2 was against attorney Richard L. O’Hara for breach of fiduciary duty and actual fraud. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Schwartz defendants, ruling claims time-barred under the statute of limitations, rejecting continuous representation and equitable estoppel. In the O'Hara action, breach of fiduciary duty claims were also dismissed as time-barred, but the actual fraud claim, initially preserved, was modified on appeal to be dismissed for 80 WETH. The disputes centered on undisclosed fees and potential conflicts of interest during the 1985 transaction.

Real Estate LawStatute of LimitationsBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelContinuous Representation DoctrineBrokerage FeesAttorney MisconductActual FraudConstructive Fraud
References
10
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 10,492 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