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
Jul 15, 1988

Garcia v. Paradise Guard Dogs, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff, a dog groom, who was hired as an independent contractor by the defendant, a kennel operator. The plaintiff was attacked by a pit bull named Samson, a security animal boarded at the defendant's facility, while guiding it back to its cage. The trial court instructed the jury that a person keeping a dangerous animal is presumed negligent, and the plaintiff did not need to prove negligence. The appellate court found this instruction erroneous given the plaintiff was a professional kennel worker aware of the risks. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, stating that the issue of defendant's negligence should not have been taken away from the jury.

Dog Bite InjuryProfessional NegligenceIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityJury InstructionsReversed and RemandedAssumption of RiskKennel OperationsDangerous Animals
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Book Dog Books, LLC

Plaintiffs, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc., and Pearson Education, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against defendants Book Dog Books, LLC and Philip Smyres for alleged copyright and trademark infringement. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to disqualify Neil B. Mooney, counsel for the defendants, asserting that he was a necessary fact witness due to prior testimonies and declarations given in this and related cases concerning a settlement agreement and disclosure obligations. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to disqualify. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that Mooney's testimony was either necessary to their case or would be prejudicial to the defendants, especially in light of the defendants' unequivocal commitment not to call Mooney as a trial witness.

Copyright InfringementTrademark InfringementDisqualification MotionAttorney-Witness RuleLegal EthicsSettlement AgreementPrejudice AnalysisNecessity of TestimonyFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial Discretion
References
59
Case No. ADJ16597333
Regular
Aug 12, 2025

TYSON PEREZ vs. CHICAGO DOGS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; HOUSTON ASTROS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY/ CHUBB

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued an en banc opinion to grant reconsideration regarding a jurisdictional dispute involving applicant Tyson Perez. Defendant Chicago Dogs sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding of personal jurisdiction, arguing their witness was improperly denied electronic testimony crucial for presenting evidence. The Board found the denial of electronic testimony without due process to be an error, emphasizing the policy favoring adjudication on merits. Therefore, reconsideration was granted, and a final decision is deferred for further review.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEN BANCPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPERSONAL JURISDICTIONELECTRONIC TESTIMONYDUE PROCESSFAIR HEARINGSUBSTANTIAL JUSTICELIBERAL PLEADINGDISCOVERY
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2000

Goldberg v. Lorusso

Joel Goldberg, a realtor, sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a German Shepard named Lupo at the home of Robert and Rose LoRusso, which he was attempting to preview for sale. Despite a "Beware of Dog" sign, the property listing indicated the dog would be secured, yet Lupo was unrestrained due to a communication lapse. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no prior vicious propensities from the dog. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating Goldberg's complaint. The court ruled that a factual issue existed regarding the foreseeability of danger posed by an unrestrained dog in a house listed for public viewing by unaccompanied realtors, noting that the defendants usually secured the dog, indicating their awareness of potential issues.

Dog attackPersonal injuryNegligencePremises liabilityProperty owner liabilitySummary judgmentForeseeabilityRealtor injuryGerman ShepardAppellate review
References
8
Case No. ADJ2912162 (POM 0296875)
Regular
Oct 18, 2010

LESLIE ALLEN vs. GLENDORA VILLAGE PETS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the applicant, a dog groomer, was an independent contractor, not an employee. However, the administrative law judge found sufficient evidence to establish an employment relationship, based on factors including the defendant's control over the work schedule, provision of essential tools and supplies, collection of fees, and handling of customer complaints. The Board affirmed the judge's findings, concluding that the applicant was an employee at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeslie AllenGlendora Village PetsADJ2912162POM 0296875Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurycervical spinedog groomeremployee vs. independent contractor
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08387 [133 AD3d 719]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Jackson v. Georgalos

Sheena Jackson, a postal worker, sued Jorge Georgalos and Joanne Guerrero-Georgalos for personal injuries sustained at their residence. Jackson alleged that as she delivered mail, the defendants' dog jumped on a screen door, causing it to open and the dog to run out. As she tried to avoid the dog, her ankle twisted, leading to a fall on the steps. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating their dog had no prior vicious propensities, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryDog BiteStrict LiabilityVicious PropensitiesSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longstreet v. Peltz

The plaintiff, a nanny, allegedly sustained injuries from a dog bite by the defendant's dog. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the dog lacked vicious propensities, but the Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryDog BiteSummary JudgmentVicious PropensitiesAppellate ReviewNannyPrima Facie ShowingTriable Issue of FactReversedMotion Granted
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rhabb v. New York City Housing Authority

Justice Jasen dissents, agreeing with the Appellate Division that the trial court properly dismissed the complaint against the Housing Authority. He argues that a municipality is not liable for negligence for a dangerous situation without prior notice, a principle he believes was not met concerning an allegedly dangerous dog in a public playground. Jasen distinguishes the current scenario from precedents like Caldwell, asserting that the mere presence of a dog, even one that sporadically chased children, does not constitute a 'patently dangerous' or criminal activity that would trigger constructive notice. Furthermore, he contends that notice cannot be imputed from the dog's owner being a Housing Authority employee, as his role was non-supervisory and unrelated to the playground incident. Concluding that without prior notice of this specific hazard, the Housing Authority should not be held responsible for the infant plaintiff's injuries, Jasen criticizes the majority's decision as an unwarranted extension of liability.

Municipal LiabilityNotice RequirementConstructive NoticeActual NoticeDangerous ConditionPublic PlaygroundDog BiteInfant InjuryDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01985 [149 AD3d 202]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2017

Scavetta v. Wechsler

Gregory Scavetta was injured when Stuart Wechsler's dog, leashed to an unsecured bicycle rack, dragged the rack through a street and into Scavetta. Scavetta and his wife filed a negligence claim, asserting Wechsler was negligent in attaching his dog to the insecure rack. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The court, constrained by the Court of Appeals' Bard rule, reiterated that liability for injuries caused by domestic animals in New York is determined solely by the owner's knowledge of the animal's vicious propensities, effectively barring negligence claims in such cases. The Appellate Division expressed disagreement with the current legal precedent but was bound to follow it.

Dog owner liabilityNegligence claimsStrict liability doctrineVicious propensity ruleAnimal-induced injuryUnsecured objectAppellate court decisionJudicial constraintNew York tort lawSummary judgment
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 43 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