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
Sep 26, 2012

Madison v. Sama

This case involves a medical malpractice action where the defendants sought to preclude the plaintiff from presenting evidence on new theories of liability. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the denial of the defendants' preclusion motion. Previously, a motion for further deposition of the defendant doctor on a new theory of excessive blood loss was granted by the motion court, which also directed an amended bill of particulars. However, that prior decision was reversed on appeal because the plaintiff did not establish 'unusual or unanticipated circumstances' for further discovery. The current decision clarified that the prior appellate order did not determine the propriety of the motion court’s sua sponte directive for an amended bill of particulars, thus not mandating preclusion under the law of the case doctrine. The court also found no improvident exercise of authority in deferring to the trial court for expert testimony limitations.

Medical MalpracticePreclusion MotionLaw of the Case DoctrineFurther DiscoveryAmended Bill of ParticularsExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSupreme Court OrderCivil ProcedureDenial of Motion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Proud

Plaintiff Edward L. Davis initiated a putative class action against New York State and federal defendants, challenging their administration of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The core of the dispute revolves around the method for restoring SNAP benefits, specifically addressing reductions due to Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) and the adequacy of benefit notices and fair hearing procedures. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, citing jurisdictional issues like the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, alongside claims of preclusion and failure to state a claim. The court denied dismissal on jurisdictional grounds for most claims, finding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inapplicable and the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity applicable. However, it granted dismissal for plaintiff's arbitrary and capricious claims and claims regarding the sufficiency of notices, deeming them time-barred or failing to state a claim, while other aspects of the motion were denied.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ProgramClass ActionDue ProcessEleventh AmendmentRooker-Feldman DoctrineAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunityMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Regulations
References
97
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benson v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems

Plaintiff Selina Benson filed a complaint against North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems and individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and marital status, along with retaliation and breach of implied contract, under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss various claims. The court dismissed most NYSHRL claims (except retaliatory discharge) due to the election of remedies doctrine, and similarly dismissed most §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986 claims against North Shore due to preclusion. Additionally, Title VII claims against individual defendants and those alleging sexual orientation discrimination were dismissed. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims as time-barred under the continuing violation doctrine and dismissed the implied breach of contract claim, while allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a collective bargaining agreement claim.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual Orientation DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationBreach of Contract
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Slaughter

R.B. Slaughter, an employee of Basin Testers, Inc., tragically died after a fall in a company shower. His widow subsequently filed a claim for death benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. The insurance company appealed this decision, raising concerns about the admissibility of a res gestae statement and challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove Slaughter was within the course and scope of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the original judgment, concluding that ample independent evidence existed, even without the disputed statement, to establish Slaughter's eligibility for benefits under the personal convenience doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPersonal Convenience DoctrineCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentRes GestaeHearsayLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Amoco Production Co.

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blum v. General Electric Co.

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 1,100 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