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

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1986

Claim of Matias v. Donmoor, Inc.

Raymond Matías, an employee, fatally attacked a co-worker with a knife after a heated exchange. The co-worker acted in self-defense, striking Matías's head with a piece of lumber. Matías's widow filed for death benefits, which the Workers’ Compensation Board denied under Workers’ Compensation Law § 10, citing Matías's willful intent to injure. The claimant appealed, arguing a lack of willful intent and an inconsistent application of the aggressor defense. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence of Matías's willful and deliberate actions, including bringing a weapon to work and initiating an unprovoked attack, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

Workers' Compensation Law § 10Willful Intent to InjureDeath Benefits DenialWorkplace AssaultSelf-DefenseAggressor DefensePresumption of CompensabilityStatutory BarEmployee MisconductFatal Injury
References
3
Case No. No. 92
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2019

Jose Rivera v. State of New York

This New York Court of Appeals case addresses the State's vicarious liability for an assault committed by correction officers on an inmate. The inmate, Jose Rivera, was brutally attacked by Officer Michael Wehby and restrained by other officers, Femia and LaTour. The Court of Claims and Appellate Division found Wehby's actions were outside the scope of employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Wehby's unprovoked and excessive force was a significant departure from his duties, thus precluding vicarious liability under respondeat superior. The dissenting judges argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the other officers, who restrained Rivera, acted within the scope of their employment, potentially believing they were maintaining prison order.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityCorrectional Officer MisconductInmate AssaultScope of Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment AffirmationExcessive ForceCorrection Law ViolationsIntentional TortsAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Slade v. Perkins

The case involves an appeal on a shortened record from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the claimant, a demolition worker, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment when he was assaulted at his job site in New York City. The claimant testified the attack was unprovoked, while a coworker stated the claimant had propositioned a passing girl, who later returned with the assailant. The Board found, based on credible evidence, that the assault constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that issues of fact and witness credibility are for the Board to determine. A dissenting opinion argued that merely sustaining an injury at the employment site does not automatically make it compensable, especially if the claimant's actions provoked the incident.

AssaultDemolition WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCredibility of WitnessesWorkmen's Compensation LawBoard FindingsAppellate ReviewUnprovoked AttackCompensable Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooley v. New York State Police

In January 1985, a State Trooper experienced a heart attack, leading him to file a workers' compensation claim asserting work stress and wood-cutting for fitness as causes. The State Insurance Fund controverted the claim, arguing the heart attack was due to wood-cutting for a personal second job. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found occupational disease and awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later rescinded this decision, determining that the claimant was not under undue work stress and his heart attack stemmed from personal activity. This appeal affirmed the Board's disallowance, citing substantial evidence that the personal wood-cutting precipitated the heart attack, rather than work-related stress. The court found medical evidence of job-related causation speculative and upheld the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions.

Heart AttackOccupational DiseaseJob StressPersonal ActivityCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardClaim Disallowance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2006

Glover v. Augustine

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment concerning negligent hiring and premises security but granted their request for a psychological examination of the plaintiff. On appeal, these orders were unanimously affirmed. The court found a triable issue of fact regarding negligent hiring, as the defendants employed Augustine without a background check despite knowing he was a convicted felon, and he subsequently attacked the plaintiff. It was deemed unforeseeable as a matter of law that Augustine's attack was not foreseeable, particularly given his prior convictions for sexual abuse. Additionally, the court upheld the psychological examination due to the plaintiff's claim of psychological injury from the attack.

Negligent HiringPremises SecuritySummary JudgmentPsychological ExaminationForeseeabilityCriminal Background CheckSex OffenderCorrection LawAppellate DivisionEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1984

Claim of Carpino v. Treasure Chest Restaurant

Claimant's husband, a chef, suffered a heart attack at work and a fatal second heart attack five days after release from the hospital. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that his work efforts precipitated the heart attack and his subsequent death was causally related to his employment, awarding death benefits. The employer appealed, arguing a preexisting coronary artery disease and insufficient notice, citing the need for more strenuous work than ordinary life. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the decedent's job required long hours, a hot kitchen, and heavy lifting, which was strenuous for him. The court noted that the Board is free to choose among conflicting expert medical opinions regarding causal relationship, and their decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackCausal RelationshipStrenuous WorkPreexisting ConditionExpert TestimonySubstantial EvidenceDeath BenefitsNoticeAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1995

Signorile v. Lefrak-SBN Associates

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying summary judgment motions by Squibb Corporation and Lefrak entities. The court found that material facts remain disputed regarding whether the defendants owed a duty to the plaintiff to enhance security measures. This duty arose particularly after a similar attack occurred three months prior in the same building, where an assailant used the elevator to guide a victim to a vacant floor. Specific requests had also been made to reprogram the elevators to bypass vacant floors. Furthermore, the issue of whether the failure to reprogram the elevators was a proximate cause of the attack on the plaintiff was determined to be a matter for a jury to resolve. Finally, the court noted that questions of fact also persist concerning which defendant maintained control over elevator access to the floor where the attack occurred.

Security measuresElevator safetyPremises liabilityNegligenceDuty of careProximate causeSummary judgmentPrior similar incidentsForeseeabilityFact issues
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Doersam v. Oswego County Department of Social Services

The dissenting opinion by Mikoll, J., with Levine, J., argues to affirm the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision that the claimant's heart attack was work-related. The dissent references a series of cases, including *Matter of Klimas v Trans Caribbean Airways* and *Matter of Masse v Robinson Co.*, establishing that work-related stress, without further physical incident, can constitute an accidental injury. The Board found the claimant's job consistently stressful, with specific incidents increasing this stress, exacerbating preexisting hypertension and worsening blood pressure, leading to a heart attack on November 26, 1982. The dissent contends that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination, citing testimony from the impartial specialist and the employer's medical expert which, despite not ruling out causality, acknowledged the role of stress. The opinion concludes that the Board rationally found that the claimant's demanding work and subsequent cardiac symptoms from a frightening incident caused the heart attack.

Heart AttackWork-Related StressCausalityDissenting OpinionSubstantial EvidenceOccupational InjuryHypertensionCardiac SymptomsBoard DecisionMedical Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boston v. Medical Services for Women

Claimant, a medical secretary, sustained serious injuries from an acid attack while leaving her workplace, en route to a parking garage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's injury was compensable, finding it occurred within the precincts of employment, as the route was a usual means of ingress and egress. The employer failed to provide adequate proof of a personal motive for the attack. Subsequently, the Board's decision and amended decision were affirmed on appeal.

Acid AttackCompensable InjuryIngress and EgressEmployment PrecinctsEmployer LiabilityAppellate AffirmationPersonal Motive DefenseMedical Secretary InjuryWorkplace AssaultBoard Ruling
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 272 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