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
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giannetti v. Darling Delaware Carting Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe burns while employed at Arby's. During the damages phase of the trial, the defendant sought to introduce safety gloves as evidence to mitigate damages, arguing that their use would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The plaintiff objected, contending that such evidence was improper for the damages phase and that 'seat belt' precedents were not applicable due to the lack of a statutory mandate for safety gloves. The court, drawing an analogy to seat belt cases, ruled that safety gloves could be admitted as evidence for mitigation of damages if the defendant proves their availability, the reasonableness of their use, and a causal link between non-use and injuries. This decision effectively allows the introduction of pre-accident conduct to mitigate damages in certain circumstances beyond statutory mandates.

Mitigation of DamagesSafety GlovesSeat Belt DefensePersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityPre-accident ConductEmployer LiabilityReasonable Prudent Person StandardTort Law
References
15
Case No. 01-CV-1868
Regular Panel Decision

Picinich v. United Parcel Service

Plaintiff Richard M. Picinich sued United Parcel Service (UPS) and individual defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge. This case came before the court on remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which had affirmed liability but vacated a prior finding that Picinich failed to mitigate damages. Upon reconsideration, the court determined that the defendants failed to meet their burden to prove that Picinich did not make reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages. Consequently, the court amended its previous award, granting Picinich additional back pay, front pay until he reaches age 65, compensatory damages, and pension credits.

Americans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateDiscriminatory DischargeMitigation of DamagesBack PayFront PayCompensatory DamagesPension Credits
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chelli v. Banle Associates, LLC

This appellate decision from the Supreme Court, Queens County, addresses an action for personal injuries where the defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict. Key issues included whether the plaintiff sustained a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, impacting common-law indemnification, and the excessiveness of damages for future pain and suffering. The court, applying a new interpretation of "permanent total disability" from Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., modified the judgment to grant common-law indemnification against the plaintiff's employer. Additionally, the damages award for future pain and suffering was deemed excessive, leading to a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount.

Personal InjuryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCommon-Law IndemnificationPermanent Total DisabilityFuture Pain and SufferingDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. CV99-4341 (BMC) (RML)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2007

Ramey v. District 141, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

This case addresses several motions related to damages following a prior finding that defendant breached its duty by improperly stripping plaintiffs' seniority rights. The court examined the foreseeability of the September 11th attacks causing layoffs in the airline industry, concluding it was not foreseeable. However, the financial decline and subsequent bankruptcy of U.S. Airways were deemed potentially foreseeable causes of injury. The decision clarifies that the burden of proof for showing the September 11th attack as a superseding cause lies with the defendant. Additionally, claims for damages from voluntary furloughs or early retirement are to be analyzed under a mitigation of damages framework, with the defendant bearing the burden to prove plaintiffs acted unreasonably. Finally, the court ruled that the damages request is incidental to the primary request for injunctive relief, therefore, the remaining issues will be tried to the Court, not a jury.

ForeseeabilityProximate CauseSeptember 11th AttacksAirline IndustryLayoffsSeniority RightsBankruptcyDamages ClaimsMitigation of DamagesConstructive Discharge
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,952 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