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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

The court properly dismissed the plaintiff's second cause of action, which alleged negligent training, management, and supervision of employees. The plaintiff claimed she was confined to an office for an hour and denied a union representative during a discussion regarding work distribution based on her ethnicity and religious beliefs. The court ruled that this claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. It further stated that the cause of action did not provide sufficient facts to invoke the intentional tort exception to the Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically lacking allegations that the defendants had knowledge of or acquiesced in their employees' tortious conduct.

negligent trainingnegligent supervisionworkers' compensation lawexclusive remedyintentional tort exceptionemployment lawdismissalunion representationethnicity discriminationreligious discrimination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1984

Grivas v. Grivas

An infant plaintiff, injured by a running lawnmower left unattended by her mother, initiated a negligence action. The complaint alleged negligent supervision and negligent operation of the lawnmower. Special Term dismissed the entire complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent supervision claim, citing Holodook v Spencer, which established parental immunity for claims based solely on negligent supervision. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the negligent operation claim, distinguishing it as a breach of duty owed to the world at large, not merely arising from the parent-child relationship. The case was remitted for trial to determine whether the negligent operation of the lawnmower was the proximate cause of the infant's injuries.

NegligenceParental LiabilityIntrafamily Tort ImmunityNegligent SupervisionDangerous InstrumentLawn Mower AccidentProximate CauseSummary JudgmentDuty of CareAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Fidelity Investments

Plaintiff Darnell Cook sued his employer, Fidelity Investments, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision following a demotion. Fidelity moved for partial dismissal of the emotional distress claim and for partial summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim. The Court granted Fidelity’s motion to dismiss the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, ruling that the alleged conduct did not meet the standard for extreme and outrageous behavior. The Court also granted Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment on the negligent supervision claim, finding it barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision and preempted by the TCHRA. Consequently, both of Darnell Cook’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision were dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIITexas Commission on Human Rights ActIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent SupervisionTexas Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentDismissal with PrejudiceEmployment Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02263 [44 NY3d 329]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Nellenback v. Madison County

Michael Nellenback sued Madison County under the Child Victims Act for negligent supervision after being sexually abused by his social services caseworker, Karl Hoch, between 1993 and 1996. Nellenback alleged the County was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining Hoch, who was later convicted of abusing other children. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the County, which the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no triable issue of fact on the negligent supervision claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Nellenback failed to prove the County had actual or constructive notice of Hoch's propensities or that lax supervision would have revealed the abuse, and that evidence for this was purely speculative. The dissenting opinion argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding the County's lax supervision and its failure to identify warning signs.

Child Victims ActNegligent SupervisionSexual AbuseSocial Services CaseworkerSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewCourt of AppealsEmployee MisconductChild Welfare Standards
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ajaz v. Continental Airlines

Mohammed Ajaz, an aircraft mechanic, sued his former supervisor Mark Wauters and employer Continental Airlines for discrimination based on national origin (Pakistani) and religion (Muslim) under Title VII, and for negligent supervision under Texas law, following his termination in 1992. Ajaz alleged discriminatory comments, harassment, and retaliatory termination. Wauters moved to dismiss, arguing he wasn't named in the EEOC charge, isn't individually liable under Title VII, and that the negligent supervision claim is barred by the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) and Texas law. The court granted Wauters' motion, dismissing all claims against him. It found Wauters was not sufficiently implicated in Ajaz's EEOC charge, lacked individual liability under Title VII, and that Ajaz's negligent supervision claims (for both physical and emotional injuries) were precluded by the TWCA, given Ajaz had received workers' compensation benefits for a work-related injury. The court also noted that negligent infliction of emotional distress is not a cognizable claim in Texas.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationNegligent SupervisionMotion to DismissEEOC ChargeIndividual LiabilityWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05950
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2021

Dojce v. 1302 Realty Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Petrika Dojce, was injured by a power saw while working for an employer hired by 1302 Realty Company, LLC's tenant. Dojce sued 1302 Realty, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), including negligent supervision, retention, and hiring, and injuries such as psychosis. The Supreme Court of Kings County denied 1302 Realty's motion to strike negligent supervision claims, granted Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and granted Dojce's motion to strike certain deposition testimony. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by granting 1302 Realty's motion to strike the negligent supervision, retention, and hiring claims due to lack of evidence. The Appellate Division also denied Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely, as it was filed months after the deadline and raised different issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the striking of Francesco Pedulla's deposition testimony as an appropriate remedy for improperly obtained evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionDeposition TestimonyUntimely MotionIndustrial CodeWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Laura I.M. v. Hillside Children's Center

The case concerns infant plaintiffs who were sexually abused by Sergey Reznikov, a patient at Hillside Children’s Center, during unaccompanied weekend home visits. Reznikov had a documented history of pedophilia, for which he was admitted to Hillside. Plaintiffs sued Hillside, asserting liability for negligent failure to exercise professional judgment in allowing these home visits without properly assessing supervision capabilities. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The affirmation was based on Hillside's failure to discuss supervision with Reznikov's mother and a social worker's omission to inform a psychiatrist of critical information regarding Reznikov's contact with the victims.

negligenceprofessional judgmentchild sexual abusetreatment facility liabilitypedophiliasupervision failurehome visit policysummary judgmentappellate affirmancephysician-patient privilege
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2000

T. W. v. City of New York

This personal injury action arises from the sexual assault of an infant plaintiff by Anthony Monroe, an employee of the Police Athletic League (PAL) at a community center. Plaintiffs sued PAL for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for PAL, dismissing the complaint. However, the appellate court modified the decision, denying summary judgment on the claims of negligent hiring and retention, and negligent supervision of the children. The court found that factual issues existed regarding PAL's duty to investigate Monroe's criminal background, given its knowledge of a prior conviction, and its duty to supervise the children.

Negligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSexual AssaultPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCriminal Background CheckEmployer LiabilityProximate CauseYouth Programs
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,195 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