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 the Estate of Green

This proceeding involves an uncontested application for leave to settle and compromise a wrongful death action stemming from a fire on December 4, 1980, which resulted in the death of the decedent, survived by a spouse and three children. The proposed structured settlement totals $5,650,000, comprising a cash payment and annuities purchased through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, designed to provide guaranteed periodic payments of $37,674,000. The court addresses several issues, including the propriety of attorney's fees, the allocation of annuity costs among beneficiaries based on the Kaiser formula, and potential modifications to equalize shares among the children. The court found the proposed allocation unacceptable as it granted the widow significantly more than her Kaiser share and penalized the children, and also identified drawbacks in the guardian ad litem's suggestion due to its impact on the youngest child from inflation and a substantial reduction in their Kaiser entitlement. The decision concludes by proposing modifications to the guardian's plan, including increasing annual support and adjusting shares between the middle and youngest child, and ultimately remands the matter for reconsideration due to the changes affecting the parties and the widow's annuity.

Wrongful Death SettlementStructured SettlementAnnuity AllocationPecuniary LossDependency PeriodBeneficiary SharesKaiser FormulaGuardian Ad LitemAttorney's FeesEstate Distribution
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between City of Lackawanna & AFSCME, AFL-CIO Local Union No. 1205

This case addresses the determination of compensation due to four City of Lackawanna employees—Levulis, Dombrowski, Plaza, and Michalek—who were wrongfully discharged. An arbitrator initially ordered their reinstatement with full compensation, which the Supreme Court confirmed after the City's attempt to vacate the award was denied and subsequent appeals were dismissed due to lack of prosecution. Despite court orders, the City delayed reinstatement and compensation, leading to a judgment for back pay and a contempt order. The central issue before the court is how to calculate the back pay, specifically concerning deductions for earnings from other employment held concurrently with municipal employment prior to discharge, and claims for vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay. The court ruled that earnings from pre-existing second jobs are not deductible from back pay and that vacation, personal leave, and birthday pay are not due over and above full pay reimbursement, holding the City responsible for the extensive delays.

Wrongful DischargeBack Pay CalculationCivil Service LawDeductions from WagesDual EmploymentArbitration Award EnforcementContempt of CourtPublic Employee RightsReinstatementErie County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Muccini

The Surrogate's Court considered a petition to compromise a wrongful death action and settle the administratrix's account. The decedent, a construction foreman, was fatally injured in 1980, survived by his spouse and four sons. A structured settlement was reached with multiple defendants for a court-determined present value of $1,246,578. The court approved the settlement but modified the distribution of proceeds to align with the Kaiser formula and addressed attorneys' fees. It ruled that attorneys' fees should be paid proportionally with the structured settlement receipts, rather than a large upfront sum, to protect the distributees' interests, especially the minor children, and directed proper handling of funds for infant distributees.

Wrongful DeathStructured SettlementAttorneys' FeesInfant DistributeesEstate AdministrationKaiser FormulaSurrogate's CourtGuardian ad litemPresent ValueSettlement Distribution
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Aluminum Company of America

This case addresses whether an initial notice of claim for personal injuries against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is sufficient to cover a subsequent wrongful death claim when the injured party dies after the notice is served but before the lawsuit commences. George Andrucki, after being diagnosed with mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at the World Trade Center, served a notice of claim for personal injuries. He died before the lawsuit officially began, and his widow amended the complaint to include wrongful death and survivorship claims. The Appellate Division had ruled that a new notice of claim was required for the wrongful death action. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the original personal injury notice of claim was adequate, as the wrongful death action was fundamentally a continuation of the personal injury claim and the initial notice fulfilled its purpose of enabling investigation.

Notice of ClaimSovereign ImmunityWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaStatutory InterpretationCondition PrecedentCourt of Claims ActUnconsolidated Laws
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanderson v. Bellevue Maternity Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was removed from her position at Bellevue Maternity Hospital by her supervisor, Susan Fraley, following a co-worker's allegation of harassment. Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against the co-worker for defamation and tortious interference, and against Bellevue and Fraley for defamation and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court dismissed the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, citing qualified privilege, and the wrongful discharge claim against Bellevue, upholding the principle of at-will employment. This appeal affirms the dismissal of the defamation claim against Bellevue and Fraley, concluding that Fraley's statements were protected by qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate actual malice. The court also noted the abandonment of the wrongful discharge claim on appeal.

DefamationAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceRespondeat SuperiorWrongful DischargeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHarassment AllegationEmployee Relations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2013

Mohan v. Atlantic Court, LLC

Edward Mohan sustained injuries at a construction site and later died. His representatives, the plaintiffs, filed an action for personal injuries and wrongful death against the site owner, Atlantic Court, LLC, and the general contractors, Kit Construction, LLC, and Kit Construction Co., Inc. The general contractors then brought a third-party action against Mohan's employer, Eagle One Roofing Contractors, Inc., the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order granted summary judgment dismissing the wrongful death cause of action and parts of the indemnification claims. On appeal, the order was modified: summary judgment on the wrongful death claim was denied due to factual disputes regarding the causation of Mohan's death, and summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Eagle One was denied due to a factual issue on whether Mohan suffered a grave injury. However, the contractual indemnification claims against Eagle One by Kit Construction Co., Inc. and Atlantic Court, LLC, were affirmed.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorAppellate ReviewCausation (Medical)
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raum v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a homosexual partner, should have standing to sue for wrongful-death damages under EPTL 5-4.1. The dissent contends that the motion court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful-death claim by narrowly interpreting 'surviving spouse'. It asserts that denying homosexual partners, who are legally barred from marrying, the right to sue constitutes an invidious distinction violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The opinion references precedents like Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. to support a broader, functional interpretation of the statute to promote public welfare, and distinguishes other cases like Matter of Cooper and Matter of Secord v Fischetti. It concludes that excluding homosexual life partners from the class of persons with standing lacks a rational basis, as it is unrelated to the statute's goals, the State's marriage policy, or administrative convenience, and therefore the decision below should be reversed and the wrongful-death claim reinstated.

Wrongful DeathEqual ProtectionHomosexual PartnersSurviving SpouseEPTL 5-4.1Statutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSame-Sex MarriageRational Basis ReviewStanding to Sue
References
14
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DelRossi v. V

This case addresses an application by Bernadette DelRossi, as administratrix of her deceased husband John E. DelRossi's estate, for court approval of a wrongful death settlement and a declaration regarding a lien asserted by Aetna/U.S. Healthcare. John E. DelRossi died due to alleged medical malpractice, leading to a wrongful death action that settled for $825,000. Aetna/U.S. Healthcare (Aetna/Rawlings), an ERISA plan administrator, sought reimbursement for medical benefits paid to the decedent from these proceeds. The court ruled that Aetna/Rawlings' lien was invalid against the wrongful death settlement, as such proceeds do not form part of the decedent's estate and the administratrix, in this capacity, is not considered a plan member. The court granted all aspects of the plaintiff's application, including approving the settlement, counsel fees, the proposed distribution plan to the six distributees, and dispensing with the requirement for the administratrix to post a bond.

Wrongful DeathMedical MalpracticeERISA PreemptionSettlement DistributionLien InvalidityEstate AdministrationPecuniary LossInfant DistributeesJudicial DiscretionStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

Loos v. New York Telephone Co.

The plaintiff, a 25-year repairman for New York Telephone Company and a union member, was discharged after a 10-day suspension due to alleged misconduct. Following a three-step grievance procedure, the union declined to pursue arbitration on his behalf. The plaintiff subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant for wrongful discharge. At the trial stage, the complaint was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case regarding the union's alleged wrongful refusal to arbitrate. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted, with the appellate court referencing *Vaca v Sipes*. The court determined that sufficient evidence existed to make out a prima facie case, asserting that the factual question of the union's conduct should have been presented to a jury.

Wrongful DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureArbitrationFair Representation DutyPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewNew TrialSuffolk County
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,058 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