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. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Root v. Sanger

Plaintiff Lawrence B. Root was injured in a vehicle collision while being driven to his office by coemployee Daniel A. Sanger, on a private roadway owned by Rotterdam Ventures, Inc. The collision involved another vehicle driven by coemployee Matthew S. Passamonte. The accident occurred 15 minutes after the workday had ended. Defendants Sanger and Passamonte moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (6), as they were acting within the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court denied their motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike this affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed, holding that travel to and from work is not activity 'in the course of employment' and the defendants were rendering personal favors, not employer services, at the time of the accident. Therefore, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law did not apply.

Vehicle AccidentCoemployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentTravel to/from WorkPersonal FavorsSummary JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Root v. County of Onondaga

Howard Root was injured when an underground concrete vault he was working in was suddenly inundated with water, trapping him. Plaintiffs sued defendants for alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but denied dismissal for §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the order was modified. The court ruled that Labor Law § 240 (1) was not applicable as the injury was not due to a fall from an elevated surface or being struck by a falling object. Furthermore, defendants were found to have no ownership interest in the property, and the general contractor's scope of work did not include the accident. Subcontractors also lacked authority to supervise or control the work. Consequently, the defendants were not liable under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFalling Worker TestNondelegable Duty
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1991

Davies v. Contel of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss her complaint. She alleged that the defendant, through its independent contractor E. E. Root & Sons, Inc., negligently conducted excavation work near her property, causing her to trip and suffer a knee injury. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint, ruling that E. E. Root & Sons, Inc. was an independent contractor and, therefore, the defendant was not liable for its actions. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no rational basis for a jury to find the defendant liable on the independent contractor issue. It found insufficient evidence that the defendant controlled Root's work or that the cable installation was inherently dangerous.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityNegligenceDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentControl TestInherently Dangerous WorkAffirmed Judgment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cramer v. BASF Wyandotte Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an occupationally related disease contributed to the decedent's death. The decedent had bronchitis, an occupational disease, and also aortic stenosis, which caused his death. The key issue was whether the bronchitis contributed to his death by preventing cardiac surgery that would have prolonged his life. Expert medical testimony indicated that the bronchitis made him ineligible for the necessary aortic valve replacement surgery. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the bronchitis prevented life-prolonging surgery and affirmed the Board's amended decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseBronchitisAortic StenosisMedical TestimonyCausationSurgical ContraindicationLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewBoard Determination
References
5
Case No. ADJ900432 (SAC 0323091)
Regular
Dec 30, 2011

MARLENE COPUS vs. NORTH SACRAMENTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a dispute over the necessity of spinal surgery for an applicant who sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her neck and back. While the applicant's treating physician recommended surgery, a second opinion physician disagreed, citing a lack of nerve root compression. The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficient to determine the necessity of surgery, particularly in light of ACOEM Practice Guidelines which generally recommend against surgery without nerve root compression. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case to appoint an independent physician to evaluate the applicant and determine the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarlene CopusNorth Sacramento Elementary School Districtcumulative traumaspinal surgerynerve root impingementcervical stenosisDr. OrisekDr. GregoriusACOEM Practice Guidelines
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Paul v. Haley

Emma Lee Paul sued Alex Haley, Doubleday Publishing Company, and American Broadcasting Companies (ABC) for the alleged misappropriation of novel ideas from her unpublished autobiography, The Bold Truth, claiming they were used in Haley's book Roots and its televised adaptations. After initial federal copyright claims were dismissed, Paul filed a state action in Nassau County Supreme Court for unfair competition and breach of implied contract, both predicated on "idea theft." The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that Paul's claimed "ideas" lacked the requisite novelty and originality for protection under New York law, and therefore could not be misappropriated. The court also found compelling evidence that Roots was independently conceived by Haley before Paul submitted her manuscript to Doubleday. The complaint against all defendants was dismissed.

Intellectual PropertyIdea TheftCopyright LawNovelty RequirementSummary JudgmentUnfair CompetitionImplied ContractLiterary WorksIndependent CreationPreemption
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Root v. Eastern Refractories Co.

The plaintiff, representing a decedent exposed to asbestos from 1950-1993 and later diagnosed with asbestosis and mesothelioma, brought suit against Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. The plaintiff alleged the decedent's exposure was due to Eastern's ERCO-Mat product while employed at Syracuse University. Eastern moved for summary judgment, asserting it did not supply asbestos-containing products to the university during the relevant period. However, the plaintiff presented conflicting deposition testimony from the decedent and an Eastern employee, indicating that ERCO-Mat blankets contained asbestos and were supplied by Eastern. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment, as the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order, denial of the summary judgment motion, and reinstatement of the complaint against Eastern Refractories Co., Inc.

AsbestosMesotheliomaAsbestosisSummary JudgmentProduct LiabilityERCO-MatEastern Refractories Co., Inc.Onondaga CountyAppellate CourtReversal
References
4
Case No. VNO 0539404
Regular
Apr 03, 2008

DUANNA CARLISLE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a widow's claim for death benefits after her police officer husband died from a ruptured aortic aneurysm. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct the weekly payment rate for death benefits. While affirming the total benefit amount and the date of injury, the Board amended the award to reflect a higher weekly payment rate of $840.00, consistent with current statutory guidelines for temporary total disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsRuptured Aortic AneurysmHypertensionPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaDate of InjuryDate of DeathLabor Code Section 4702Temporary Total Disability Indemnity
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 28 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