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 Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mournet v. Educational & Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry

The plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling at premises owned by the Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry (ECT), where her employer, Prudential Recreation Corp., doing business as JIB Lanes (JIB), leased space. The plaintiff sued both ECT and JIB. ECT asserted an affirmative defense that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of JIB. ECT moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), (17). The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that ECT failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding JIB’s control over ECT’s day-to-day operations. Further discovery was also deemed warranted due to ECT's exclusive knowledge of some facts.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrinePersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPrima Facie EntitlementEmployer LiabilityRelated Entities
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2009

Goode v. Woodside

The plaintiff sued co-employee Scheniqua L. Woodside and Karl L. Abbadessa for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff and Woodside were traveling to a mandatory staff meeting in Woodside's car after returning a company bus, indicating they were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Woodside moved for summary judgment dismissal, arguing the action against her was barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court denied her motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to Woodside because the plaintiff's action was barred by co-employee exclusivity and he did not suffer a 'grave injury.'

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity provisionsCo-employee liabilitySummary judgmentPersonal injuryCar accidentScope of employmentGrave injuryAppellate reviewReversal of order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1996

Sanfilippo v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the defendant's motion to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation exclusivity and also granted summary judgment based on this defense. Upon the plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue, the court adhered to its prior order. However, the appellate court unanimously modified this order. It affirmed the granting of the motion to amend the answer, citing no prejudice from the delay. Crucially, the appellate court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that there were unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a 'special employee' of the defendant, specifically concerning the supervision and control of the plaintiff's work.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employment DoctrineMotion to Amend AnswerMotion to RenewMotion to ReargueQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor Law Defense
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2003

Alvarez v. Cunningham Associates, L.P.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint due to the exclusivity of the workers’ compensation remedy. The order also denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff was a special employee of Cunningham Associates, L.P., and therefore barred from suing his special employer under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Wen Management Corp. was also afforded immunity as Cunningham's managing agent.

Personal InjurySpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentLabor LawExclusivity DoctrineEmployer ImmunityAppellate DecisionControl TestVicarious LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. State

This case consolidates 20 appeals addressing whether claimants are precluded by Workers' Compensation Law from suing their employer, the State of New York, for intentional assault. The claims arose from the 1971 Attica Correctional Facility uprising. The court held that claimants who applied for and received workers' compensation benefits, or for whom the Workers' Compensation Board determined injuries were accidental and compensable, are barred from maintaining intentional tort actions against their employer. The decision emphasizes the finality and exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, asserting that such matters fall under the Board's jurisdiction. The Appellate Division's dismissal of these actions was affirmed, with the court noting that claimants' only recourse is to petition the Workers' Compensation Board for reconsideration of its determinations.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyIntentional AssaultAttica UprisingSummary JudgmentFinality of Board DecisionsCollateral AttackEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewTort Claims
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2003

Livsey v. Main-Livingston Associates

This case involves an appeal from an order that dismissed a plaintiff's personal injury action. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained from a slip and fall at her workplace. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). This provision applies because the plaintiff and all of the defendant's partners were considered "in the same employ." The plaintiff's argument that the accident occurred while she was on her way to work, and therefore not subject to workers' compensation limitations, was rejected by the court. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal.

Personal InjurySlip and FallWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySame Employ DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate DecisionMotion to DismissWorkplace AccidentErie County LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,195 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