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

Caballero v. First Albany Corp.

Plaintiff, a former employee, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant employer, dismissing her six causes of action. Her claims included gender discrimination, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery (due to secondhand smoke), unsafe workplace (Labor Law § 200), and civil rights discrimination (Civil Rights Law § 40-c), all stemming from alleged retaliation for her complaints about smoking in the office. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the mistreatment was animus-based, not sexual discrimination. The court also held that her employment was at-will, her emotional distress claims lacked outrageous conduct, and her assault and battery and unsafe workplace claims were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions.

Employment-at-willSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationWrongful DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssault and BatteryUnsafe WorkplaceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySmoking PolicyRetaliation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Illinois Central Railroad

Theo Jennings, a trackman, sustained a disabling knee injury when a 'dry rotted' maul handle broke during spike driving. He sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to an unsafe workplace and equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railroad. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that Jennings presented insufficient evidence of the Railroad's negligence. The court dismissed arguments regarding maul exposure and prior breakages as speculative and determined that using a maul was not inherently unsafe, thus not requiring the Railroad to provide automated alternatives.

Federal Employers Liability ActRailroad IndustryWorkplace SafetyDefective ToolsSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimDry RotMauls and SpikesEmployee InjuryEvidence Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keifer v. Spring Shadows Glen

Virginia Keifer sued her employer, Spring Shadows Glen, for negligence after sustaining a shoulder injury at work due to an unsafe environment. The employer, a non-subscriber to the Texas Worker's Compensation Act but covered by an ERISA plan, argued for summary judgment based on ERISA preemption, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the court examined ERISA's preemptive scope and Fifth Circuit precedent, particularly *Hook v. Morrison Milling Co.*. It concluded that common law negligence claims regarding an unsafe workplace are not preempted by ERISA. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.

NegligenceERISA PreemptionSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilityCommon Law ClaimsFederal PreemptionFifth Circuit PrecedentTexas Court of AppealsReverse and Remand
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMullen v. PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION

The court considered Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride argued for federal removal jurisdiction, asserting that plaintiffs’ claims arose under ERISA, which preempts state law claims related to employee benefit plans. However, the court found that the plaintiff's petition only asserted state law causes of action for employer negligence in failing to maintain a safe workplace, not claims for benefits under the ERISA plan. Citing prior case law, the court concluded that a common law negligence suit alleging an unsafe workplace does not 'relate to' an ERISA plan merely due to a waiver inserted in the plan. Therefore, the court determined it lacked removal jurisdiction and granted the motion, remanding the case to the 217th Judicial District Court in Angelina County, Texas.

ERISA preemptionMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsEmployer NegligenceUnsafe WorkplaceDenial of BenefitsCommon Law NegligenceTexas CourtJudicial District Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin

Mrs. Judy Copelin sued Reed Tool Company for loss of consortium following her husband's severe brain injury sustained on the job, alleging the employer intentionally caused the harm by maintaining an unsafe workplace. The central legal issue was whether an employer's intentional creation of a hazardous work environment constitutes an intentional injury, thereby allowing an employee to bypass the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Reed Tool, a decision later reversed by the court of appeals. This Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals, reinstating the trial court's summary judgment. The Court ruled that merely failing to provide a safe workplace does not qualify as an intentional injury unless the employer specifically believed the injury was substantially certain to occur, a standard the plaintiff's evidence of gross negligence failed to meet.

Employer LiabilityIntentional InjuryUnsafe WorkplaceLoss of Consortium ClaimSummary Judgment ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityGross Negligence DistinctionSubstantially Certain InjuryWorkers' Compensation Act (Texas)Tort Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romanelli v. Long Island Railroad

Frank Romanelli sued his employer, the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), alleging that his work as a track worker exposed him to hazardous environmental contaminants, causing pulmonary and cardiac problems. LIRR filed three motions in limine to preclude Romanelli's medical experts from testifying on causation, Romanelli from testifying about exposure to toxins at unsafe levels, and Romanelli from testifying that LIRR had a duty to provide a respirator. The court granted the motions in part and denied in part. It allowed treating physicians to testify on the causation of respiratory issues by workplace exposures due to common knowledge, but not on the link between pulmonary and cardiac problems without demonstrated methodology. Romanelli was permitted to testify about his first-hand exposure to dust, fumes, and chemicals but not to label them as 'hazardous contaminants' or at 'unsafe' levels. Lastly, Romanelli could not testify about LIRR's legal duty to provide a respirator, but could testify about not being provided one despite requests and that its absence caused him to ingest more harmful substances.

FELAMotions in LimineExpert Witness TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyCausationEvidentiary StandardsWorkplace ExposurePulmonary ConditionsCardiac ConditionsRespirator Requirements
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Unsafe Building & Structure Number 97 Columbia Heights

The City of New York filed a motion to tax and adjust costs and disbursements related to an Unsafe Building proceeding for a property at 97 Columbia Street, Brooklyn, following a major fire in February 1980. The city sought judgment for demolition costs incurred after a court precept was issued. The respondent owner, 97 Columbia Heights Housing Corp., challenged the city's claim, arguing that the demolition lacked competitive bidding and that the owner was denied an opportunity to perform the work. Justice Gerald Adler found no merit in the respondent's contentions, ruling that an emergency justified bypassing competitive bidding and that the owner failed to meet the conditions to perform the work themselves. The court ultimately granted the city's motion in all respects.

Unsafe BuildingDemolition CostsEmergency DemolitionCompetitive Bidding ExemptionAdministrative CodeGeneral Municipal LawProperty Owner ResponsibilityMechanic's LienFire DamagePublic Safety
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornyn v. Speiser, Krause, Madole, Mendelsohn & Jackson

Appellants, former Southwest Airlines ticketing agents, sued their former attorneys for legal malpractice and Southwest Airlines for an unsafe workplace, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Texas Health and Rehabilitation Act (TCHRA) due to work-related injuries. They claimed their attorneys failed to timely file an ADA lawsuit and that Southwest failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants were estopped from claiming they could work with accommodations because they had applied for and received workers' compensation and disability benefits, consistently asserting they were unable to work.

Legal MalpracticeUnsafe WorkplaceSummary JudgmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Disability BenefitsWorkers' CompensationEstoppel DoctrineElection of RemediesQualified Individual with Disability
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,039 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