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

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pease v. Anchor Motor Freight

Claimant, a truck driver for Anchor Motor Freight since 1969 and owner of a construction business since 1973, injured his back in 1976. A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his average weekly wage for workers' compensation, with claimant advocating for the "200 multiple" method under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). Anchor Motor Freight argued against this, citing claimant's voluntary limitation of employment due to his construction business. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the appellate court affirmed that claimant voluntarily limited his employment with Anchor, thus his average weekly wage should be based on actual earnings rather than the 200 multiple method. The court further clarified that conflicting dual employments where one limits availability for the other constitutes a voluntary limitation.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationVoluntary Limitation of EmploymentDual Employment ConflictWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(3)Disability ApportionmentPart-Time EmploymentConcurrent EmploymentEmployer Payroll RecordsUnion Rules ImpactJudicial Affirmation
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08809
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2017

Dereveneaux v. Hyundai Motor America

Keith Dereveneaux, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants Hyundai Motor America, Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, and Trade Show Specialists Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal against Hyundai Motor America because the plaintiff failed to oppose the initial motion for relief. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Trade Show Specialists Corp., concluding that the plaintiff was a special employee, which barred his personal injury claim under Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, summary judgment was affirmed for Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., and Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, regarding Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, as they demonstrated no control over the work site and the cited Industrial Code provisions were inapplicable. The plaintiff's opposition failed to raise any triable issues of fact.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilityWorksite ControlIndustrial CodeAppellate ProcedureAggrieved Party
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Scott v. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc.

Paul W. Scott, a part-time body repairman, died from an injury sustained while working on a car for R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an employer-employee relationship, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding Scott was an independent contractor. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. and its carrier appealed the Board's determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that Scott operated as an independent contractor due to factors like lack of supervision, working on his own schedule, providing his own tools, and receiving a fixed payment upon completion. The court highlighted that no single factor is conclusive in determining an employment relationship.

employment relationshipindependent contractorworkers' compensationaccidental deathscope of employmentcontrol testmethod of paymentfurnishing equipmentright to dischargeappellate review
References
4
Case No. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01902 [170 AD3d 1506]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2019

Patricola v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff, Steven M. Patricola, commenced a premises liability action against defendants General Motors Corporation and GM Powertrain, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped on a walkway on their property. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the storm in progress doctrine. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court concluded that defendants' own submissions raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the storm had sufficiently abated prior to the accident, precluding the application of the storm in progress doctrine. Additionally, issues of fact existed regarding whether defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentstorm in progress doctrinesnow removallandowner liabilityfactual disputeappellate reviewnegligencehazardous condition
References
7
Case No. 88 Civ. 1534
Regular Panel Decision

Barbagallo v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas L. Barbagallo filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors Corporation (GM) in New York, alleging age discrimination related to its Special Separation Program. The program offered varied separation incentives based on employee age and length of service, notably restricting severance pay to employees under age 53. GM sought summary judgment, asserting that its program, including severance pay provisions, falls under the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), thus preempting New York's age discrimination laws. The Court analyzed whether the severance pay provisions, both in isolation and as an integrated part of the overall program, constituted an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA, differentiating it from one-time severance payments. Concluding that GM's Special Separation Program, with its severance pay components, is governed by ERISA, the Court found Barbagallo's state law age discrimination claim preempted and granted GM's motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentERISA PreemptionAge DiscriminationSeverance PayEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanSpecial Separation ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment LawState Law ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grogg v. General Motors Corp.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by individual employees and unions against General Motors, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 concerning pregnancy and maternity leave policies. A settlement stipulation was submitted, but it excluded a subclass of female employees who were forced to take involuntary maternity leave before December 20, 1971. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy denied approval of the settlement, deeming it unfair, inadequate, and unreasonable. The court found that the stipulation improperly extinguished valid claims of this excluded subgroup without offering adequate consideration or a merits hearing, despite their high likelihood of prevailing.

Class ActionTitle VIIEmployment LawPregnancy DiscriminationMaternity Leave PoliciesSettlement ApprovalJudicial DiscretionCivil Rights Act of 1964Due Process RightsBackpay Awards
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karian v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Plaintiff, a mechanic for M&G Convoy, Inc., was severely injured when an M&G employee, unaware of plaintiff's presence, moved a tractor-trailer plaintiff was working on at Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.'s terminal. A jury found Anchor 80% negligent and M&G 20% negligent under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, awarding $5,000,000. Anchor later settled with the plaintiff for $1,999,500, with M&G waiving its workers' compensation lien. The appellate court reviewed the apportionment of liability, finding sufficient evidence for negligence by both Anchor and M&G. The court determined the jury's apportionment was against the weight of the evidence and directed a new trial on liability apportionment unless parties stipulated to 80% liability for M&G and 20% for Anchor; Harold Henderson's appeal was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LienCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Apportionment of LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewSafe Place to Work DoctrineThird-Party ActionSettlement AgreementProximate CauseEvidentiary Rulings
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alteri v. General Motors Corp.

This order addresses a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs Louis J. Alteri, et al., challenging a March 19, 1996 decision that granted summary judgment to defendants General Motors Corp. and Local Union 854, dismissing the plaintiffs' Labor Management Relations Act lawsuit as untimely. The plaintiffs contended that the court erred in calculating the statute of limitations and in overlooking their argument for equitable tolling. The court reiterated that the six-month limitations period for a hybrid LMRA claim begins when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the union's breach, not the employer's, establishing April 1993 as the starting point. Furthermore, the court found no basis for equitable tolling due to fraudulent concealment, concluding that plaintiffs lacked diligence in discovering their cause of action despite any misleading information. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Labour LawStatute of LimitationsHybrid ClaimBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingReconsiderationSummary JudgmentUnion Breach
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 519 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