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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

Schnapp v. Miller's Launch, Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, the plaintiff, a surveyor for Weeks Marine, was injured while attempting to board a chartered boat by jumping from a four-foot bulkhead instead of utilizing available safety equipment. The negligence claim falls under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, focusing on the defendant's 'turnover duty' and 'duty to intervene.' While the majority reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the dissenting judge argues that the hazard was open and obvious, and the plaintiff had alternative safe boarding methods, thereby absolving the defendant of its turnover duty. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the boat's captain lacked actual knowledge of the plaintiff's unsafe boarding method, thus no duty to intervene was breached. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the order granting summary judgment to the defendant should have been affirmed.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActTurnover dutyDuty to interveneShipowner negligenceOpen and obvious hazardSummary judgmentDissenting opinionVessel safetyDocking proceduresPersonal injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bergman v. Bergman

This is an appeal of a turnover order issued by the trial court to enforce a judgment for arrears in alimony payments. Appellant Paul Bergman argues that the order is invalid as it seeks turnover of proceeds from his retirement benefits, which are exempt under Texas law, despite a prior agreement governed by Connecticut law. The case involves complex choice of law questions regarding property exemptions under the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, especially concerning the conflict between Connecticut and Texas exemption statutes. The appellate court determined that Texas exemption law should apply. Consequently, the court reversed the turnover judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Alimony arrearsTurnover orderRetirement benefits exemptionConflict of lawsTexas Property CodeConnecticut General StatutesRestatement (Second) of Conflict of LawsJudgment enforcementSpousal supportInterstate judgment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. United States

Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez sued the United States for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Suits in Admiralty Act after sustaining injuries on the vessel SBX-1. Gonzalez, a pipefitter, was injured during a sea trial when he slipped on hydraulic fluid. The court found that Gonzalez's claims were governed by the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA), not the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, concluding that there was no violation of the vessel's turnover duty, active control duty, or duty to intervene under the LHWCA. The court also held that seaworthiness claims are explicitly barred by the LHWCA.

Maritime LawLHWCAJones ActSeaworthiness ClaimNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentVessel Owner DutyTurnover DutyActive Control DutyDuty to Intervene
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinagra v. Atlantic Ocean Shipping, Ltd.

Plaintiff Vincent Sinagra, a longshore worker, was injured on November 27, 1997, while discharging cargo from the M/V Atlantic Ocean at Howland Hook Marine Terminal in Staten Island, New York. His right hand was crushed and index finger amputated when a container, from which he was removing a stacking shoe, was suddenly lowered by a fellow Howland employee. Sinagra sued Atlantic Ocean Shipping Limited, the vessel owner, alleging negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Azrack, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the Atlantic Ocean did not breach its 'turnover' duty, 'active involvement' duty, or duty to 'intervene'. The court concluded that Sinagra's injury was solely caused by the negligence of his employer, Howland, and his fellow dock gang members.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActMaritime LawStevedoring OperationsVessel NegligenceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryAdmiralty JurisdictionShipowner LiabilityLongshoreman InjuryCargo Discharge
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 3,148 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