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
Feb 05, 1981

Thompson v. Maimonides Medical Center

Plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence against his supervisor, Manobianco, and employer, Maimonides Medical Center, following an alleged defamatory statement. Defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed several affirmative defenses, including Workers' Compensation and absolute privilege. The appellate court reversed the order in part, striking the defense of qualified privilege for specific causes of action and the Workers' Compensation defense where employer participation in intentional torts was alleged. However, the Workers' Compensation defense was upheld for claims based on respondeat superior and those where the injury was deemed compensable, even partially. The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law abrogates common-law remedies for such injuries, leaving recourse to the Legislature for perceived harsh outcomes.

DefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeRespondeat SuperiorCoemployee ImmunityEmployer LiabilityCommon Law Remedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Claim of MacKenzie v. Management Recruiters

In this workers' compensation appeal, the claimant, an office manager for Management Recruiters, sought benefits for injuries sustained in a single-car accident in Ulster County. Her claim was denied by the employer's insurance carrier, arguing the injuries were not work-related and were willfully self-inflicted. After initial reversals, the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately disallowed the claim, concluding the injuries resulted from the claimant's deliberate intent to harm herself, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption against self-injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including accident reconstruction and psychiatric testimony, supported the finding of willful intent. The court reiterated that conflicting evidence creates a question of fact for the Board, whose determinations are upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationWillful Intent to InjureUnexplained AccidentStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidencePsychiatric IllnessSuicidal IdeationAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactMedical Testimony
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2001

Reno v. County of Westchester

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed their third and fifth causes of action for personal injuries against the County of Westchester for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. It was determined that the plaintiffs failed to adequately state causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or intentional tort under a theory of respondeat superior. Furthermore, the negligence claims were properly dismissed because they were barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law, as plaintiff Robert Reno had already received Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries.

Personal InjuryMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRespondeat SuperiorWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionAppellate ReviewCounty LiabilityNegligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cortese v. Rochester Products Division, G.M.C.

This case concerns an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant who developed leg and back pain, culminating in a herniated disc, after a new work assignment involving lifting heavy carburetors. The self-insured employer appealed the Board's findings that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and that her failure to give timely statutory notice was excused. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, asserting that a compensable accident can arise from repetitive trauma leading to a sudden collapse, and the specific onset of severe pain satisfies the suddenness test. Furthermore, the Board properly excused the delayed notice as it neither aggravated the injury nor hindered the defense. Substantial medical evidence supported the causal relationship between the work activities and the injury.

Repetitive TraumaHerniated DiscLaminectomyDelayed Notice ExcusedCausal ConnectionSuddenness TestWorkers' Compensation Board AppealSubstantial EvidenceWork-related InjuryEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ8259163; ADJ8259174
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

RAMON ARCE vs. CARDENAS MARKETS, INC., CARL WARREN

This case involves applicant Ramon Arce's petition for reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his claims for two separate dates of injury. The WCAB adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ), denying reconsideration. The WCJ found that Arce's July 6, 2011, right knee injury was not work-related, based on conflicting testimony and medical records indicating the injury occurred at home and was related to playing soccer. Furthermore, the WCJ found the January 9, 2012, slip and fall injury to be self-inflicted, based on witness testimony suggesting Arce intentionally fell to pursue a claim. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and denied the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility findingApplicant's occupationDates of InjuryAlleged Parts of Body InjuredManner in which injury occurredPetitioner's ContentionsLabor Code Section 5903(a)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro v. Village of Endicott

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained injuries while repairing his personal vehicle during "unstructured time" at the fire station. The self-insured employer and its plan administrator disputed the claim, arguing the activity was purely personal and not work-related. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined the injury was compensable, citing a departmental tolerance for such repairs during on-duty hours. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, holding that during periods of enforced waiting, reasonable activities are permissible, and the Board's finding of work-relatedness was supported by evidence of departmental tolerance.

Firefighter injurypersonal vehicle repairon-duty incidentunstructured timetolerated activityscope of employmentWorkers' Compensation Board appealcompensable injuryemployer toleranceadministrative appeal
References
7
Case No. ADJ11670075
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

JACK RIEGER vs. FOX SPORTS 1, LLC, DISCOVERY RE/TRAVELERS USF&G, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's award finding applicant's severe injuries from a five-story fall compensable. The Board rejected defendant's claims of judicial bias and dismissed their petitions for disqualification. Defendant's arguments that the fall was not work-related, intentionally self-inflicted, or a suicide attempt failed due to insufficient proof and the liberal construction of workers' compensation laws favoring injured employees. The Board found the WCJ properly limited testimony of a defense expert, and that medical records sufficiently supported the findings of injury despite the absence of a QME report.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3600(a)(5)Labor Code section 3600(a)(6)Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldisqualification of WCJbiasevidentiary decisionfinal ordersubstantial prejudice
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1988

Brophy v. County of Putnam

The plaintiff, a former Putnam County Deputy Sheriff, sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging the county opposed his efforts to obtain workers' compensation benefits and wrongfully terminated his employment. His motion for partial summary judgment, based on General Municipal Law § 207-c, was denied by the Supreme Court due to an unjustified five-year delay in asserting the statutory claim, which would prejudice the county. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the motion was affirmed on appeal, finding no merit in the plaintiff's argument against the "theory-of-pleadings doctrine" and emphasizing the lengthy and unexplained delay in asserting the claim after the law's amendment.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPartial Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDisability PensionEmployment TerminationProcedural DelayStatutory ClaimAppellate ReviewAffirmationGeneral Municipal Law
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,673 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