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
Oct 15, 2010

In Re Keller

This case involves an appeal by Judge Sharon Keller against a Public Warning issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission's warning stemmed from her decision not to keep the clerk's office open past business hours, which impeded a death penalty appeal. While a Special Master recommended no formal action, the Commission issued the warning after formal proceedings. This Special Court of Review concluded that, under Texas law, a public warning cannot be issued following formal proceedings; sanctions are only permissible after informal investigations. Consequently, the court vacated the Commission's order and dismissed the charges against Judge Keller, without commenting on the accusations' merits.

Judicial misconductPublic warningFormal proceedingsInformal proceedingsTexas ConstitutionGovernment CodeDue processJudicial reviewSanctionsCensure
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.

Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone, mechanics at Con Edison, contracted mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure from turbines sold by Westinghouse Corporation. Their estates and Stallone's wife sued multiple defendants, including Westinghouse, with a jury finding Westinghouse 20% liable. The jury also found Westinghouse demonstrated reckless disregard for safety and assessed punitive damages, but the trial court set these findings aside. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, and the higher court agreed, finding insufficient evidence for reckless disregard based on a gross negligence standard. The court concluded that Westinghouse's general awareness of asbestos risks wasn't enough to prove they knew Maltese or Stallone were at risk at a time they could have warned them.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureProduct liabilityReckless disregardPunitive damagesGross negligence standardJury verdictAppellate reviewCon EdisonWestinghouse Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allstyle Coil Co., LP v. Carreon

Roberto Carreon, an employee of Allstyle Coil Company, L.P., sustained leg injuries while working. Allstyle Coil, a non-subscriber to the Texas Worker’s Compensation system, was sued for negligence. The parties proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded Carreon approximately $217,000, finding Allstyle Coil negligent in warning, training, and supervision. Allstyle Coil appealed the trial court's judgment confirming this arbitration award, contending the arbitrator exceeded his authority and manifestly disregarded the law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that "manifest disregard of the law" is no longer a valid non-statutory ground for vacating arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act, citing U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedents. The court also found no evidence the arbitrator exceeded his authority due to the absence of the arbitration agreement in the appellate record.

Federal Arbitration Actarbitration awardvacaturmanifest disregard of lawscope of authorityworker injurynegligenceemployer nonsubscribertrial court judgmentappellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fedrau v. Porcelain Insulator Corp.

The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's negligence complaint, as there were issues of fact that should have been decided by a jury. Consequently, the judgment was reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial was granted. A dissenting opinion argued that no cause of action was established, asserting a lack of proof that the plant owner breached any duty owed to the plaintiff. The dissent further contended that the plaintiff, a skilled worker, exhibited contributory negligence by disregarding warnings about the roof's instability.

NegligenceContributory NegligenceForeseeabilityTrial Court ErrorJury QuestionsNew TrialAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyDuty to Warn
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1976

Ashe v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works

The plaintiff, a newly employed worker, sustained personal injuries while operating a press brake machine. He disregarded a prominently placed sign and his foreman's warnings by placing his hand within the die area. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered a judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, finding the machine was not ready for use until dies were installed by the purchaser (plaintiff’s employer). Additionally, the plaintiff was found guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryPress Brake MachineContributory NegligenceJury VerdictManufacturer LiabilityProduct LiabilityWorkplace SafetyMachine OperationAffirmation of JudgmentNassau County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1999

Brown v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Plaintiff Richard Brown, a DEP inspector, was severely injured when struck by a subway train after leaning over a station platform edge while investigating a water leak. He sued municipal defendants, including the NYCTA, for negligence. A jury initially found both parties negligent, awarding plaintiff damages. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, dismissing the complaint. The court concluded that plaintiff's "reckless conduct" and "disregard for an obvious hazard" were the sole legal causes of his injuries, absolving the defendants of a duty to warn against such a clear danger.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceReckless ConductObvious HazardSubway AccidentPersonal InjuryDuty to WarnAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDismissal
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2011

In re Claim of Williams

Claimant, a maintenance worker, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits after voluntarily leaving his employment early during a snowstorm without authorization. Despite being warned by his supervisor that leaving would constitute job abandonment, he departed and was subsequently terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his benefits application, finding he lacked good cause for leaving. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court noting that unauthorized early departure in disregard of a supervisor's directive can be construed as job abandonment. The conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue, which the Board was entitled to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary DepartureGood CauseJob AbandonmentSupervisory DirectiveCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSnowstormTermination
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 903 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