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. 03A01-9709-CH-00395
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1998

Deborah H. Steele v. Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc., and David Twombley - Concurring

Deborah H. Steele sued her former employer and supervisor, Superior Home Health Care of Chattanooga, Inc. and David Twombley, for sexual harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and for outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. A jury awarded Steele $1.2 million in compensatory and $60,000 in punitive damages, later remitted to $850,000 compensatory. On appeal, the Court affirmed the jury's finding of hostile environment sexual harassment against both defendants, concluding that Twombley was individually liable as an aider and abetter, and upheld the outrageous conduct claim against Twombley. However, the Court reversed the finding of quid pro quo sexual harassment against Superior due to a lack of evidence of tangible job detriment. The Court found no reversible error in the admission of evidence or jury instructions, and upheld the attorney's fees awarded against Twombley.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressOutrageous ConductTennessee Human Rights ActEmployer Vicarious LiabilitySupervisor Individual LiabilityAiding and Abetting HarassmentCompensatory DamagesRemittitur of Damages
References
23
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 51549(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Milosevic v. O'Donnell

The motion court properly dismissed the fourth and fifth causes of action against Joost, which alleged negligence and intentional/wanton conduct. These claims failed under the theory of respondeat superior, as there was no evidence the coworker's alleged assault was within the scope of employment or condoned by Joost. Furthermore, the claims based on common-law negligence for sponsoring an event were also dismissed. The court found no allegations that Joost controlled the premises or was aware of the CFO's violent propensities when intoxicated. The decision highlighted that speculation about discovery would not prevent dismissal, and thus, the court did not need to address whether the claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorAssaultEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewDismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2007

FCI Group, Inc. v. City of New York

This case involves an action brought by a contractor against the City of New York and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for the balance due on a construction contract. The defendants contended that the plaintiff forfeited its right to further payment due to the attempted bribery of two city employees by the plaintiff's president. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but this Court reversed that decision. It found that the contract's narrow alternative dispute resolution clause was inapplicable to the dispute. Crucially, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was bound by the contract’s forfeiture provision and that its enforcement did not offend public policy, as the unlawful conduct was central to the performance of the contract, thereby barring recovery.

Construction ContractContract ForfeitureBriberyPublic PolicyAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Summary JudgmentUnlawful GratuitiesEthical ConductContract InterpretationNew York City Charter
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Addei v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

A surgeon's medical license was revoked by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct due to findings of moral unfitness from sexual harassment of co-workers and fraudulent practice on employment applications. The petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court upheld the Committee's jurisdiction and the findings of moral unfitness and fraud, dismissing claims of statutory vagueness. However, the court deemed the penalty of license revocation excessively harsh and "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given mitigating factors, equivocal findings on the fraud charge, and no impact on patient care. Consequently, the court indicated that the severe penalty should not stand.

Professional MisconductLicense RevocationMoral UnfitnessFraudulent PracticeSexual HarassmentEmployment ApplicationsDue ProcessVague StatuteDisproportionate PenaltyCPLR Article 78
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hason v. Department of Health

The petitioner, a physician, sought review of a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which suspended his medical license. The ARB's decision was based on a prior California Board finding that the petitioner's ability to practice medicine was impaired by mental illness (bipolar affective disorder and narcissistic personality disorder). The court upheld the ARB's finding of professional misconduct, applying collateral estoppel to the California determination. However, the court found the penalty imposed by the ARB—a one-year suspension "and thereafter until such time as [petitioner] can demonstrate his fitness to practice medicine"—was not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Consequently, the court modified the determination by annulling the penalty and remitted the matter to the ARB for the imposition of a statutorily appropriate penalty.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductPsychiatric ImpairmentMental IllnessBipolar Affective DisorderNarcissistic Personality DisorderCollateral EstoppelArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewPenalty Annulment
References
26
Case No. ADJ7711093
Regular
Nov 10, 2014

Fernando Sosa vs. Source One Staffing, CIGA by its Servicing Facility Patriot Risk Services, For Ullico, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. The Board also granted removal on its own motion due to the lien claimant's repeated failure to appear at lien conferences and file proper objections. This conduct, along with filing an invalid petition, suggests potential bad faith and warrants a Commissioner's Conference to determine if sanctions should be imposed. The lien claim was ultimately dismissed by the WCJ for non-appearance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando SosaSource One StaffingCIGAUllicoPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantCalifornia Physician NetworkLLCDenise Mejia
References
2
Case No. ADJ7863229, ADJ7863244
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

ALICIA DE RAMOS vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, California Physician Network, LLC, whose successive petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely, unverified, and improper procedure. The Appeals Board is also initiating a sanctions hearing, pursuant to Labor Code § 5813, against the lien claimant and its representative for allegedly disrespectful and bad faith conduct. The claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, did not properly object to a dismissal notice, and filed procedurally defective petitions. The Board has removed the proceedings to consider imposing sanctions up to $2,500.

Reconsideration petitionSuccessive petitionUnverified petitionLabor Code section 5813SanctionsCommissioner's conferenceRemovalLien claimantDisrespectful remarksBad faith actions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Khan

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The claimant, a security guard, was terminated after making threatening statements to a client's building manager who had requested his reassignment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that threatening a supervisor and engaging in conduct detrimental to the employer's interests constitute disqualifying misconduct. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination.

Security Guard MisconductThreatening StatementsUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationEmployer Interest DetrimentAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationEmployee TerminationWorkplace Conduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Corchado

Claimant, an account executive for an industrial employment agency, was terminated for misconduct. He failed to contact temporary workers, leading to an insufficient workforce, despite receiving prior warnings for similar conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, a decision upheld upon reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, ruling that actions detrimental to the employer's interest, especially after warnings, constitute disqualifying misconduct. The court found no reason to disturb the Board's resolution of credibility issues.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductEmployment TerminationAccount Executive DutiesPrior WarningsAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationEmployer InterestDisqualification for BenefitsAdministrative Appeal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,048 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