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
Feb 15, 1990

Narine v. Handler

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Douglas MacHine & Tool Co., Inc.

Subhan Khan sued Douglas Machine & Tool Company, Inc. and TurboCombustor Technology, Inc. for failure to pay sums due under a debenture. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Khan violated a Subordination Agreement by attempting to collect on a junior debt without the senior creditor's consent. Khan cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the Subordination Agreement was invalidly assigned or that the senior debt had been paid. The court found the Subordination Agreement validly assigned and in force, and that Khan failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence that the senior debt was extinguished. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Khan's action, while denying Khan's cross-motion.

Summary JudgmentDebentureSubordination AgreementContract LawAssignment of ContractCorporate Veil PiercingOhio LawNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Smith

The case involves a dispute between Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company and its related fiduciaries, and Melvin Smith and his union affiliates, regarding Smith's pension eligibility after his termination. Smith applied for a pension in 1990, which the Company denied. His union filed a grievance, leading to arbitration where an arbitrator found Smith eligible for deferred pension benefits. The Company then sued to vacate the arbitration award and determine the pension amount under ERISA, while the defendants sought to confirm the award. The court confirmed the arbitration award, finding Smith's pension right arbitrable and vested under the expired collective bargaining agreement and pension plan. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Company's ERISA claim, ruling that the fiduciaries lacked standing to bring such an action.

Pension BenefitsArbitration AwardLabor DisputeERISA StandingCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Pension Plan TerminationPost-Expiration ArbitrabilityStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDisability Pension
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.

Plaintiff's testator sustained fatal injuries during his employment by USM Corporation when struck by a ram of a mill he was repairing. The mill's parts were designed and manufactured by Consolidated Machine Tool Corp., Farrel-Birmingham Co., Inc., and Parrel Corporation, all of which were succeeded by USM, a subsidiary of Emhart Corporation. Plaintiff alleged negligent and defective design, construction, and maintenance, asserting strict liability and negligence for wrongful death, pain and suffering, and loss of services. Special Term dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, citing that liability for predecessor corporations' actions was assumed by USM, the employer, thus barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court declined to adopt a dual capacity rule, stating that any such change should originate from the Court of Appeals.

Wrongful DeathStrict LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation BarCorporate Successor LiabilityDual Capacity RuleProduct LiabilityEmployment InjuryIndustrial AccidentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Callens v. Simmons Machine Tool Corp.

Plaintiff, discharged from Simmons Machine Tool Corporation in 1981 for selling scrap, subsequently sued the company and his union for damages including lost earnings. The defendant employer moved for summary judgment, contending the suit was untimely and lacked merit, a motion initially denied by Special Term. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, finding the plaintiff's action, a hybrid suit alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement by the employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union, was time-barred. The court applied the six-month Federal Statute of Limitations mandated for such cases by the National Labor Relations Act, noting the complaint was filed beyond this period. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Wrongful terminationBreach of collective bargaining agreementDuty of fair representationStatute of LimitationsSummary judgmentLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActFederal substantive lawAppellate reviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuller v. E & M Freight Handlers, Inc.

Plaintiff, injured in 1980 while delivering freight, initiated a tort action and claimed workers' compensation benefits. In April 1982, plaintiff settled with E & M Freight Handlers, Inc. and Daniel Scalza for $65,000, despite his attorney's advice against it. Plaintiff subsequently moved nunc pro tunc for court approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law section 29, subdivision 5. Defendant opposed the motion, arguing non-compliance with the procedural requirements for such approval. The court denied the motion without prejudice, emphasizing that compliance with statutory procedures is necessary, even if compensation payments haven't been made yet.

Workers' Compensation LawTort ActionSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro TuncThird-Party ActionProcedural RequirementsDeficiency of CompensationCarrier ConsentState Insurance FundDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Toole v. County of Orange

Marianne T. O’Toole, as bankruptcy trustee for Mary Bea Fratto, sued the County of Orange for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Fratto, a former corrections officer, alleged she faced rumors of a sexual relationship with a sergeant and subsequently experienced retaliation, including scrutiny of her performance and eventual termination, after filing a formal harassment complaint. The County of Orange moved to dismiss the entire complaint. The court denied the motion, ruling that the plaintiff provided plausible factual content to support both gender discrimination and retaliation claims, meeting the required minimal inference of discriminatory intent and adverse action. Thus, the case can proceed to further litigation.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEmployment LawSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissPleading StandardsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)United States District Court
References
34
Case No. ADJ10275844
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

MARIA RIVERA vs. WELMORE TOOL & ENGINEERING, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision in Rivera v. Welmore Tool & Engineering. This action was taken because a settlement has been reached during the pendency of the reconsideration. Consequently, the prior decision is rescinded, and the case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the proposed settlement. The WCJ will either approve the settlement or reinstate the original decision, with the option for either party to seek further reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionReturn to Trial LevelProposed SettlementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DecisionAdministrative Law JudgeFurther ProceedingsDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Dayton Tool & Die Works, Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Meyer challenges the majority's interpretation of an insurance policy exclusion clause concerning an insured's obligation to indemnify another for bodily injury to an employee. The majority concluded that an obligation by way of contribution is not excluded. Judge Meyer argues this interpretation is flawed, asserting that 'indemnify' in common parlance includes contribution, making the exclusion applicable. He maintains that the ordinary businessman would understand the clause to exclude such obligations, irrespective of legal distinctions between indemnity and contribution or the perceived ambiguity of 'indemnify'. Consequently, Judge Meyer would have reversed the order in the Dayton Tool case and affirmed in the County of St. Lawrence case, contrary to the majority's rulings.

Insurance Policy InterpretationIndemnity vs ContributionBodily Injury ExclusionEmployee LiabilityContractual InterpretationCommon Parlance of LawDissenting OpinionWorkers' CompensationLiability InsuranceInsurance Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 140 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