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

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

John Gibson, a seaman, suffered a heart attack in 1970 while working aboard the vessel Seawitch. His wife, Anna Gibson, subsequently initiated an action in February 1977 against his employer, American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, claiming damages for loss of consortium. American Export sought to dismiss her complaint, contending that spouses of injured seamen lacked a claim for loss of consortium under general maritime law at the time, and that the landmark Supreme Court decision in American Export Lines v Alvez (1980), which established this right, should not be retroactively applied. The court thoroughly reviewed the evolution of maritime law concerning loss of consortium, referencing key decisions such as Moragne (1970), Sea-Land Servs. v Gaudet (1974), and Alvez (1980). Ultimately, the court denied American Export's motion, ruling that the Alvez decision should be applied retroactively to cases like Mrs. Gibson's, where the plaintiff was actively challenging existing legal precedents prior to the Alvez ruling.

RetroactivityLoss of ConsortiumMaritime LawSeaman's RightsPersonal InjuryGeneral Maritime LawSpousal ClaimsFederal Maritime LawAppellate ReviewTort Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Champagne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Selma Champagne appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting cross-motions by State Farm and John L. Homan. The case originated from a 1987 motor vehicle accident where Homan allegedly struck Samuel Champagne, who later settled with State Farm for the policy limit. Selma, Samuel's wife, then sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to defend and indemnify Homan in her separate suit for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants. The appellate court modified the order, denying Homan's cross-motion, ruling that Selma's loss of consortium claim remained viable despite her husband's settlement as she was not a party to it. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for State Farm, holding that State Farm had fulfilled its policy obligations by paying the "per person" bodily injury limit to Samuel, as loss of consortium damages are derivative and do not constitute a separate "bodily injury" under the insurance policy.

Loss of ConsortiumMotor Vehicle AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy LimitsBodily InjuryDerivative ClaimSettlementAppellate ReviewPolicy Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. State

Jane Doe, a registered nurse, contracted HIV after being stuck by a contaminated needle while restraining an agitated AIDS patient at Faxton Hospital. Correction officers present refused to assist the hospital staff. Jane Doe and her husband, Joseph Doe, sued the State for negligence. The Court of Claims found the State negligent and awarded significant damages, including for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium. On appeal, the claimants challenged the limitation of Jane Doe's future economic loss to her post-injury life expectancy and the constitutionality of CPLR article 50-B. The State cross-appealed the damages. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that future economic loss should be based on pre-injury life expectancy, and affirmed the constitutionality of CPLR article 50-B and the damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of consortium.

negligenceHIV exposureAIDS diagnosispersonal injury damagesfuture lost wagespain and suffering compensationloss of consortiumCPLR Article 50-Bstructured judgmentsconstitutional challenge
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siskind v. Norris

Bernard Siskind settled a personal injury claim after a motor vehicle accident. His wife, Pearl Siskind, subsequently filed a separate action for loss of consortium. The motion court dismissed her claim, citing mandatory joinder of derivative actions. The appellate court reversed, ruling that a loss of consortium claim is a separate and independent cause of action, not subject to mandatory joinder, and thus the husband's prior settlement does not bar the wife's action. The court noted that defendants could have sought a release from the wife during the initial settlement but acknowledged the potential for duplicative awards.

Loss of consortiumDerivative claimsMandatory joinderPermissive joinderSpousal injuryPersonal injury actionSettlement and releaseStatute of LimitationsAppellate reviewTort law
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DaPonte v. Manfredi Motors, Inc.

Plaintiffs Arthur and Marcia DaPonte sued Manfredi Motors, Inc. and related entities, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, along with state common law claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. Arthur DaPonte claimed defendants failed to provide promised health insurance, leading to adverse health consequences. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the discrimination claims due to the plaintiffs' failure to establish a prima facie case. However, the court found the state law misrepresentation and loss of consortium claims were not preempted by ERISA and dismissed them without prejudice, allowing them to be pursued in state court.

ADA claimsNYSHRL claimsNYCHRL claimsDisability discriminationSummary judgmentERISA preemptionFraudulent misrepresentationNegligent misrepresentationLoss of consortiumEmployment law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2007

Orlikowski v. Cornerstone Community Federal Credit Union

Plaintiffs, Michael Orlikowski and his wife, appealed a judgment in a personal injury action, seeking increased damages for future pain and suffering and loss of consortium. Defendants, the building owner and general contractor, cross-appealed the finding of Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought judgment against third-party defendant Thomas Johnson, Inc. The appellate court rejected the defendants' challenge to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, it found the awards for future pain and suffering and loss of consortium inadequate, conditionally granting a new trial on these damages unless defendants stipulated to increased amounts. Additionally, the court modified a premature final judgment for indemnification against Thomas Johnson, Inc. but affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs against them.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law 240(1)DamagesFuture Pain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,151 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