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. Appeal No. 01A01-9709-CV-00483, Davidson Circuit No. 96C-363
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1998

Long, et. ux. v. Landmark Television of TN

Billy Ray Long and Vicky Long appealed a summary dismissal of their lawsuit against Landmark Television of Tennessee, Inc., and supervisor James E. Norton, alleging emotional injury from verbal and physical harassment. The harassment, including physical touching and derogatory comments about Mr. Long's obesity, occurred from 1988 to 1995, leading to medical leave and emotional distress for both plaintiffs. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury and preempted by the Workers Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the physical injury claims were time-barred and that the employer-employee relationship did not support a tort claim for emotional distress, with Workers Compensation providing the exclusive remedy for employment-related misconduct. Furthermore, the court found the supervisor's conduct did not meet the 'outrageous conduct' threshold required for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Vicky Long's claims were dependent on her husband's.

Emotional DistressHarassmentSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWorkers CompensationEmployer LiabilitySupervisor MisconductIntentional TortsLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. E2013-02708-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

Danny Long v. Quad Power Products, LLC

Danny Long suffered a severe arm injury, leading to amputation, when a ball valve mechanism broke while he was pressure testing. He and his wife, Geraldine Long, filed a product liability complaint against four companies, alleging negligence and failure to warn. Mr. Long's employer, Alstom Power, Inc., joined as an intervening plaintiff. After Mr. Long's death, Ms. Long continued the suit. The case eventually narrowed to a strict liability claim against Southern Fluidpower, Inc., based on failure to warn about pressure capacity and corrosion in water systems. The trial court granted summary judgment for Southern Fluidpower, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Southern's alleged failure to warn caused Mr. Long's injury, attributing the cause in fact to Alstom's negligence in assembling and using a known faulty valve. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Alstom's actions were an intervening cause.

Product LiabilityWorkplace InjuryAmputationFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCausation in FactIntervening CauseTennessee Products Liability ActBall Valve Failure
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03356 [161 AD3d 855]
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach (petitioner) appealed an order denying its petition to stay arbitration and granting the Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 287's (respondent) cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the City laid off firefighters and hired paramedics, setting the paramedics' terms of employment unilaterally. The union filed a grievance and demand for arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's petition and granted the union's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that arbitration of the claim regarding firefighter layoffs violated public policy, citing Civil Service Law § 80 (1) which grants public employers nondelegable discretion over staffing. However, the court found no public policy precluding arbitration of claims related to the paramedics' terms of employment, as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the order was modified to grant the City's petition to stay arbitration of the layoff claim and deny the union's cross-motion to compel arbitration of that claim, while affirming the rest of the order.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyFirefighter LayoffsParamedics EmploymentCivil Service LawManagement PrerogativeTaylor LawAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00977 [136 AD3d 824]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287 v. City of Long Beach

Jay Gusler, a lieutenant in the City of Long Beach Fire Department and a member of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association, Local 287, was demoted to firefighter. This demotion followed a disciplinary proceeding presided over by Robert L. Douglas, as per a settlement agreement between the City and the Association. The appellants (Gusler and the Association) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the demotion, arguing Douglas lacked authority under the City Code. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the City and Association could negotiate a collective bargaining agreement allowing demotion, and Douglas acted within the authority granted by their settlement agreement.

DemotionFirefightersCollective Bargaining AgreementSettlement AgreementDisciplinary ProceedingsArticle 78 ProceedingArbitrator AuthorityCity CodePublic EmploymentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weil v. Long Island Savings Bank, FSB

Plaintiffs, a class of individuals who obtained residential loans from Long Island Savings Bank FSB (LISB) between 1983 and 1992, sought class certification in a lawsuit alleging that LISB charged excessive legal fees that were used to fund illegal kickbacks to its CEO. The action, brought under federal statutes like RICO, TILA, RESPA, and New York General Business Law, claimed fraud and negligent supervision related to these undisclosed payments. Defendants opposed the class certification, citing issues with Rule 23 requirements such as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, as well as arguments about the predominance of individual issues and the statute of limitations. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Platt, addressed each of the defendants' arguments, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs met the criteria for class certification. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted.

Mortgage FraudKickback SchemeClass CertificationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23RICO ActTruth in Lending Act (TILA)Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)Equitable TollingStatute of LimitationsAdequacy of Representation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1987

Madarash v. Long Island Rail Road Co.

Plaintiffs, employees of the Long Island Rail Road Company (LIRR), initially sued LIRR under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for injuries sustained in a 1983 collision. Subsequently, Green Bus Lines, Inc. (Green Bus) was added as a defendant through an amended complaint, following indications that a Green Bus vehicle caused the accident. Green Bus successfully moved to dismiss these claims, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the absence of "serious injuries" under New York's No-Fault Law. However, the court allowed the LIRR to implead Green Bus and for plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint, re-asserting state law claims against Green Bus. Green Bus then moved to dismiss this Second Amended Complaint on grounds of subject matter jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. The court denied both motions, affirming its pendant-party jurisdiction and ruling that the action was timely under New York's savings statute, N.Y.Civ.Prac.Law § 205(a). The court also critically noted Green Bus's significant delay in challenging jurisdiction, suggesting potential sanctions for needlessly incurred jury selection expenses.

FELAPendant JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAmended ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureNew York LawCourt DelaySanctionsPersonal Injury
References
16
Case No. 94 Civ. 4397
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1998

Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc.

Plaintiff Linda Hamilton, widow of George Hamilton, filed an asbestos claim against several defendants, including Atlas Turner Inc., in the Southern District of New York in 1994. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, defendant Atlas filed post-trial motions, including a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court previously denied the jurisdictional motion with leave to renew. Upon a fuller record, the court now grants Atlas's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that New York law provides a basis for exercising jurisdiction over Atlas under CPLR § 301 ("doing business") or CPLR § 302 (long-arm statute). The court concluded that Hamilton's injury did not occur in New York, but in Virginia, where his asbestos exposure took place, thus failing the long-arm statute's requirements. Consequently, the other post-trial motions from Atlas were not considered.

Personal JurisdictionAsbestos ExposureMotion to DismissDiversity JurisdictionNew York CPLR 301New York CPLR 302Tortious ActDoing BusinessLong-Arm StatuteSitus of Injury
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2004

Thomas v. Long

Jeanne Long, a former Harris County jailer, was reinstated by the Harris County Sheriffs Department Civil Service Commission after her termination. However, the Department required her to complete a physical ability test before returning to work, which Long refused. She then filed suit in state district court against Sheriff Tommy Thomas, seeking a declaratory judgment that she was entitled to return without the test. The district court partially ruled in Long's favor, implicitly denying the Sheriff's jurisdictional challenge. The court of appeals dismissed the Sheriff's interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction and that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Long's reinstatement claims because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Commission regarding the physical test requirement. Consequently, Long's reinstatement claims were dismissed.

Interlocutory AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesGovernmental UnitPlea to the JurisdictionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusCivil Service SystemEmployment Law
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06495 [143 AD3d 710]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the case, reiterating that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited, permissible only if the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator's power. The Court found that the arbitrator did not apply an incorrect standard of review and that the award itself did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not clearly exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order and judgment.

Arbitration awardJudicial reviewPublic policy violationIrrational arbitrationArbitrator's powerAppellate Division Second DepartmentCPLR Article 75Vacate arbitration awardFirefighters Association disputeNassau County Supreme Court
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 4,294 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