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
Mar 01, 2011

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs TPTCC NY, Inc., The Proton Institute of New York, LLC, and N.Y. Medscan LLC sued defendants Norton Travis, Radiation Therapy Services Inc. (RTSI), Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cicero Consulting Associates VCC, Inc., New York Proton Management LLC (NYPC), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged federal antitrust, federal copyright, and various New York state law claims, contending a conspiracy to exclude them from the New York City market for Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) services and misappropriation of their business plan. The court dismissed the antitrust claims, applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and finding a lack of antitrust injury. Copyright claims were dismissed because the business plan lacked creativity for copyright protection and was jointly authored. State law claims, including breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, were also dismissed due to various legal deficiencies, such as the absence of a joint venture, the public disclosure of alleged trade secrets, and the lack of a fiduciary relationship. The court reaffirmed its order granting defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directing entry of final judgment for the defendants.

Antitrust LawCopyright LawTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJoint VentureNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSherman ActNew York Common Law
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lew v. Radiation Dynamics, Inc.

Samuel Lew sued his former employer, Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI), alleging national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Lew, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, claimed he was discriminated against due to his French accent and subsequently terminated after complaining about a discriminatory remark by his supervisor. RDI moved for summary judgment, asserting Lew failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the discrimination claim and that his termination stemmed from poor performance. The Court granted summary judgment for RDI on the national origin discrimination claim, finding Lew's allegations primarily focused on retaliation rather than direct discrimination. However, the Court denied RDI's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and its motion to limit damages, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of Lew's termination, including disputed examination scores and performance evaluations. The case will proceed to trial on the retaliation claim.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964National Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingEEOC ExhaustionTemporal Proximity
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Parker

This is a Workmen's Compensation appeal where Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin (defendant) appealed a judgment favoring Alton A. Parker (plaintiff). Parker claimed total and permanent disability due to cancer resulting from radiation exposure during his employment. The defendant contended there was no evidence establishing a causal link between the work-incurred radiation and Parker's cancer. The court reviewed the medical expert testimonies, finding them insufficient to prove a causal connection based on reasonable medical probability. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered that the plaintiff take nothing, concluding that medical opinions were speculative without accurate information on radiation exposure.

CancerRadiation ExposureCausal ConnectionMedical TestimonyExpert WitnessesTotal DisabilityPermanent DisabilityOccupational HazardLymphomaSeminoma
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lahrick L.

Lahrick L., a five-month-old infant, suffered extensive first and second-degree burns while in the custody of the respondents. The petitioner presented prima facie evidence of child neglect based on these injuries. The respondents claimed the child rolled off a bed and came into contact with a hot radiator. However, Dr. Moohr, a pediatrics expert specializing in child abuse burn injuries, refuted this explanation, stating the burn patterns were inconsistent with radiator burns and more consistent with hot liquid splatter. Additionally, a caseworker testified that the radiator in question was cold and inoperable on two separate visits in January 1985. The dissenting judge, Eiber, J., found the respondents' explanation factually insufficient to rebut the petitioner's prima facie showing of neglect and argued that the record contained ample evidence to support a finding of child neglect, urging for a finding of guilt and remittal for a dispositional hearing.

child neglectburn injuriesprima facie evidenceexpert medical testimonydiscrediting parental explanationcircumstantial evidenceFamily Court Actdissenting opinioninfant injuriesburden of proof
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hock v. Builtland Partners

Louis Hock, a window cleaner, was injured while attempting to exit a seventh-floor window at 335 Madison Avenue, owned by Builtland Partners and managed by Cushman and Wakefield, Inc. He fell when a radiator cover he was using to step onto gave way. Plaintiffs, Louis and Janice Hock, filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court reviewed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for gravity-related accidents if proper safety devices are not provided. The court determined that Hock's accident fell within the ambit of the statute, as he was not provided with a safe means to overcome the elevation differential to access his work platform. The collapse of the radiator cover highlighted the lack of a required safety device. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendants.

Scaffold LawAbsolute LiabilityElevation Related HazardGravity Related InjuryWindow Cleaning AccidentRadiator Cover CollapseProximate CauseNondelegable DutySummary JudgmentWorker Safety
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First District Dental Society v. Sencer

The petitioners, dental societies in New York City, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a directive from the New York City Department of Health. The directive, dated August 14, 1981, mandated that all radiation installation licensees, including dental offices, make complete copies of Article 175 of the New York City Health Code available for staff examination. Petitioners argued this requirement was arbitrary and capricious due to its impracticality, financial burden, and the existence of an alternative provision allowing a descriptive notice. Respondents defended the directive as a rational measure to protect public health and ensure worker instruction regarding radiation safety, aligning with state and federal regulations. The court, applying the standard for administrative review, found a rational basis for the Department's interpretation and upheld the directive, denying the petitioners' request for nullification, though a 60-day stay on enforcement was granted.

Radiation SafetyHealth CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDental PracticesRegulatory CompliancePublic HealthArticle 78 ProceedingsAgency InterpretationDirective Challenge
References
8
Case No. 15-25-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Shannon Medical Center v. Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole

Radiologists Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole sued Shannon Medical Center, alleging the hospital failed to properly monitor, report, and restrict their exposure to radiation while they treated patients, leading to injuries including cancer and amputations. Shannon Medical Center, a licensed health care provider, moved to dismiss these claims under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, arguing that they constituted health care liability claims requiring a statutory expert report. Sickels and Cole denied their claims were health care liability claims, asserting they arose from violations of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Texas Administrative Code, that they were employees of Shannon Medical Center, and that they had satisfied the expert report requirement by providing voluminous medical records. The trial court denied Shannon Medical Center's motion to dismiss, prompting this appeal. Shannon Medical Center argues that the claims satisfy all elements of a health care liability claim, highlighting the substantial nexus to health care, the involvement of medical equipment, and the need for expert testimony. They also contend that Sickels and Cole are not employees of the hospital, but rather independent contractors employed by Shannon Clinic, and that the medical records provided do not meet Chapter 74's expert report requirements for standard of care, breach, and causation, nor was a curriculum vitae served. Shannon Medical Center seeks reversal of the trial court's denial, dismissal of the case with prejudice, and an award of statutory remedies.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportRadiation ExposureHospital NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74Motion to DismissEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRadiology
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1984

Coakley v. General Motors Corp. Harrison Radiator Division

The claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1968, resulting in a schedule award, and retired in 1975. In 1980, she suffered a consequential injury to her right leg, held to be the responsibility of the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A schedule award was established in 1983 based on the consequential injury date. The claimant sought a penalty against the Special Fund, arguing the compensation rate should be based on the consequential injury date, not the original injury date. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the rate for a consequential injury is determined by the rate applicable at the time of the origin of the injury and modified the award accordingly. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that a consequential injury emanates solely from the original injury, and the pertinent rate of compensation should be measured by the original period.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjurySchedule AwardSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensation RateOriginal Injury DateRetirementAppellate ReviewJurisdictional CorrectionNew York Workers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. SRO 134400, SRO 139130
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

COBY RICHARDS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA AND G.B. BRAGG AND ASSOCIATES, CITY OF CLOVERDALE AND REMIF

The applicant, a police officer, claimed a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a brain tumor, asserting exposure to x-rays as a known carcinogen under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the finding that the applicant did not establish an industrial injury. While acknowledging the applicant's exposure to x-rays, the Board found this exposure did not present a reasonable link to the brain tumor, as per the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion that only direct radiation to the brain is a known risk factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injuryAstrocytomaBrain tumorCarcinogenLabor Code section 3212.1Presumption of injuryPeace officerCumulative traumaX-rays
References
7
Case No. ADJ9623149
Regular
Jun 25, 2018

ADAM PALSGROVE vs. CITY OF PALO ALTO, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a firefighter diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma, claiming it's industrially caused under the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption. The defendant employer attempted to rebut this presumption by arguing the cancer's latency period exceeded the applicant's employment duration. However, medical evidence indicated that cumulative exposure to UV light during employment contributed to the cancer's development. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the employer failed to rebut the presumption of industrial causation based on this medical evidence.

Labor Code 3212.1Firefighter presumptionBasal cell carcinomaIndustrial causationRebuttal of presumptionKnown carcinogenLatency periodCumulative effectUV light exposureMedical evidence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 38 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