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

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2007

Bellamy v. Columbia University

The case concerns a plaintiff, an employee of Troy Associates, a temporary employment agency, who sustained injuries after slipping on a wet substance while working at Columbia University's kitchen. Columbia University moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff was its 'special employee,' thus barring his negligence claim under Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether Columbia University had assumed complete and exclusive control over the plaintiff's work to establish a special employment relationship. It emphasized that a mere cession of control by the general employer is insufficient without an affirmative demonstration of the special employer's comprehensive assumption of control. The court concluded that the lack of conclusive evidence that Columbia supervised the plaintiff as it would its own employees made summary adjudication inappropriate.

Special EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentControl TestTemporary StaffingGeneral Employer LiabilityAssumed ControlTriable Issue of FactAppellate Court DecisionPremises Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pelligrino v. Universal Maritime Service Co.

This maritime personal injury case involves plaintiff Dennis Pelligrino, a marine carpenter, who was injured after falling from grease-coated heavy machinery he was securing on a vessel. He sued Universal Maritime Service Company, Inc., the stevedoring company, and Waterman Steamship Corporation, the vessel owner. The court denied Universal's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding its alleged negligence in handling the cargo and failing to ensure safety. Conversely, Waterman's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, as the court found no evidence that the vessel owner breached its duties to longshoremen or actively participated in the cargo operations. Consequently, the complaint against Waterman was dismissed, while the action against Universal was severed.

Maritime personal injuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActStevedoring negligenceVessel owner dutiesSummary judgmentCargo securingHazardous conditionsCosmolineNegligenceShipowner liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2001

Paolangeli v. Cornell University

This case details cross appeals stemming from an injury sustained by an employee of Francis J. Paolangeli during a renovation project at Cornell University. The plaintiff fell into a hole in a darkened basement while working, leading to an action against Cornell University, Beacon Skanska USA, and Welliver McGuire Inc. under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a lack of elevation-related risk, and denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to unresolved issues of comparative fault. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, also ruling that Welliver's liability as a subcontractor presented a triable issue.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentCross AppealsConstruction Site AccidentFall into HoleElevation Related RiskNegligenceComparative FaultSubcontractor Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. State University of New York at Stony Brook

The CSEA, representing employees at SUNY Stony Brook, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent the university from allowing a rival union, Hospital Workers Union 1199, to hold a meeting on campus. CSEA argued this violated their collective bargaining agreement. The university contended the meeting was student-organized for academic freedom, not union organizing. The court ruled that the contract provision regarding meeting space must be interpreted narrowly to avoid violating the university's constitutional obligation to provide facilities nondiscriminatorily. Consequently, the court dismissed the CSEA's petition.

Academic FreedomFreedom of SpeechCollective Bargaining AgreementRival UnionsFacility UseDiscriminationFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawArticle 78 Proceeding
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parkin v. Cornell University, Inc.

Plaintiffs John Cleveland and Thomas Parkin, employees and union members at Cornell University, were arrested and fired after being accused of stealing envelopes. They alleged the charges were retaliatory for their union activities. The criminal charges were dismissed, and they were reinstated after union grievances. They then sued Cornell University and two officials (John Cerio and Ronald Mathews) for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the issue of probable cause was a question for the jury and that the abuse of process claim was wrongly dismissed, remitting the case for further proceedings.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessProbable CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewUnion ActivitiesEmployee RightsTheft ChargesWrongful Termination
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2018

Popat v. Levy

Plaintiff Saurin Popat, M.D., a doctor of African and Southeast Asian origin, filed a lawsuit alleging race and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and the NYSHRL, along with tortious interference claims. The defendants include Elad Levy, M.D., The State University of New York at Buffalo, University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Kaleida Health, and University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc. The plaintiff alleges Dr. Levy, who held multiple positions across these entities, created a hostile work environment through racially charged comments and retaliated against him by terminating his faculty position after a discrimination complaint. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. It found that UBNS and Kaleida could be considered 'joint employers' or acting 'under color of state law' for Title VII and § 1983 purposes, respectively, and that Dr. Levy could be liable under the NYSHRL as an aider and abettor. However, the University and the Medical School were granted dismissal of all claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and certain tortious interference claims against UBNS and Kaleida were also dismissed due to insufficient pleading of an actual breach or injury.

Employment DiscriminationRace & National Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsSection 1983 ClaimsNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Tortious Interference with ContractTortious Interference with Business Relations
References
146
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roldan v. New York University

The Appellate Division modified and affirmed as modified an order concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff, decedent Jose Roldan's widow, appealed the dismissal of her complaint against New York University (NYU) and Mainco Elevator, following an accident involving a freight elevator. The court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the plaintiff's evidence was speculative and inadmissible hearsay, and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for NYU defendants on their third-party claims against American Building Maintenance (ABM). ABM was found liable for contractual indemnification for defense costs and for breaching its agreement to procure adequate insurance for the NYU defendants.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contract to Procure InsuranceElevator AccidentHearsay EvidenceSpeculationRes Ipsa LoquiturAppellate ReviewDefense Costs
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandavia v. Columbia University

Chirag Mandavia, a former employee of Columbia University, sued his employer and several former colleagues for employment discrimination under Title VII, and his union, 1199 SEIU, for breach of the duty of fair representation. Mandavia alleged disparate treatment, sexual harassment, and retaliation based on his race (Asian), sex (Male), and national origin (Asian Indian), leading to his suspension and termination. He also contested the validity of a settlement agreement signed under alleged duress and without knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights. The District Court granted the motions to dismiss for his colleagues (David Figurski, Yuan Hua, and Angel Tibbs Filsaime) and the union (1199 SEIU) with prejudice, finding no individual liability under Title VII for colleagues and the union claim time-barred. Columbia University's motion to dismiss regarding the validity of the settlement agreement was denied, allowing that claim to proceed, but its motion to dismiss the retaliation claim was granted. Lastly, Mandavia's motion for reimbursement of ticket and visa costs was denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissEconomic DuressKnowing and Voluntary WaiverCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRBUSCIS
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moller v. North Shore University Hospital

This medical malpractice action involves plaintiff Moller suing Dr. David Levine and North Shore University Hospital after settling with original tortfeasors from an automobile accident. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Moller had already received full compensation, including for alleged aggravation injuries, through two prior settlements. The court conducted a hearing to ascertain if the previous settlements, totaling $250,000 and $475,000, encompassed Moller's paraparesis, neurogenic bladder, and inability to walk. The court determined that Moller failed to demonstrate that the settlements did not include these aggravation injuries, and found both prior insurance companies had considered and included these conditions in their payouts. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Dr. Levine and North Shore University Hospital, dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentSettlement AgreementsSuccessive TortfeasorsGeneral Obligations Law 15-108Aggravation of InjuriesParaparesisNeurogenic BladderAutomobile AccidentInsurance Policy Limits
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 641 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