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

In re the Arbitration between American Machine & Foundry Co. & Fay

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Nunez v. White

Petitioner, a prison inmate at Clinton County Correctional Facility, filed a grievance concerning tailor shop conditions, including an alleged unwritten policy on performance evaluations, lack of sewing machine safety guards, and removal of seat cushions. The Central Office Review Committee (CORC) largely denied the grievance. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal. The appellate court affirmed CORC's rational determination regarding performance evaluations and sewing machine safety. However, it modified the judgment, remitting the part of the petition concerning the seat cushion procedure to CORC for further adjudication, as that aspect of the grievance had not been fully addressed.

inmate grievanceprison conditionsperformance evaluationtailor shopsewing machine safetyseat cushion policyadministrative exhaustionCPLR article 78Central Office Review Committeeremittal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. E2001-00258-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

George Tipton v. Axis Fabrication & Machine Co.

This personal injury case involves George Michael Tipton, who was injured by a metal cutting machine operated by Jeff Thomas at Axis Fabrication & Machine Company. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, citing a failure to prove lack of reasonable care. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the defendants breached their duty of care by not warning Tipton of potential dangers and failing to replace a machine guard. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the defendants' negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

personal injurypremises liabilitydirected verdictnegligenceduty of careforeseeabilityworkplace injurymachine operationwarning signsvicarious liability
References
7
Case No. 01-10-00230-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Richard Sewing v. Steven Wayne Bowman as Personal Representative of the Estate of William C. Bowman

This is an appeal from a trial court's judgment regarding an alleged partnership. Appellant Richard Sewing challenged the judgment in favor of appellee Steven Wayne Bowman, as Personal Representative of the Estate of William C. Bowman. The dispute centered on a partnership formed between William C. Bowman and Richard Sewing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and sale of properties at 1718 Wentworth and 4810 Chenevert in Houston, Texas, with Bowman contributing over $260,000. The jury found that a partnership existed and awarded damages for redemption of Bowman's partnership interest. Sewing appealed, arguing issues related to the statute of frauds, sufficiency of evidence for partnership formation and contract, excessive damages, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the statute of frauds did not bar the partnership redemption claim and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Partnership AgreementReal Estate DevelopmentStatute of FraudsContract DisputeDamages AwardAppellate ReviewJury FindingsFinancial ContributionsWithdrawal from PartnershipProperty Valuation
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kern v. Roemer MacHine & Welding Co.

William and Dorothy Kern initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Roemer Machine & Welding Co., alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. The claims arose from severe hand injuries William Kern sustained while operating a machine at Frye Copysystems, Inc., which Roemer allegedly manufactured with a defective design lacking safety features. Roemer, in turn, impleaded Frye as a third-party defendant, arguing it merely assembled the machine to Frye's specifications and was not responsible for the design. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, granted Roemer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Kerns failed to present material facts demonstrating Roemer's design responsibility, and consequently denied the Kerns' cross-motion.

Summary judgmentProduct liabilityNegligenceBreach of warrantyStrict liabilityMachine designIndustrial accidentPersonal injuryManufacturing defectDesign defect
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Safety Cas. Co. v. Malvoux

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schieve v. International Business Machines Corp.

Plaintiff Michael P. Schieve, a steel worker, was injured after falling from a steel beam at a construction site owned by IBM, with Whiting as the general contractor and Gives as a subcontractor. Schieve, employed by Binghamton, alleged negligence and Labor Law violations due to the absence of safety devices. The Supreme Court partially granted Gives' motion for contractual indemnification against Binghamton but denied common-law indemnification. It also granted Schieve partial summary judgment against IBM, Whiting, and Gives for violating Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed these orders, ruling that Schieve was a protected class under Labor Law § 240 (1), the lack of any safety device constituted a violation, and liability was properly imposed on the owner and general contractor. The court also upheld the contractual indemnification.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightSafety ViolationsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
13
Case No. 2006 NY Slip Op 50326(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Bienaime v. Reyer

Jean Patrick Bienaime suffered personal injuries while cleaning a press machine owned by his employer, Quality Carton, Inc. The machine's safety interlock was non-functional, and employees routinely cleaned it while operating. Quality had hired Reyer, doing business as All Electric, to perform various electrical repairs on the machine, during which Reyer rerouted power and performed other work without wiring diagrams. Plaintiffs alleged Reyer was negligent by not checking safety devices and making the machine less safe. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment by both Reyer and Quality, finding questions of fact regarding Reyer's potential for creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-appeal.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentMachine SafetyElectrical NegligenceSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityContractual DutyDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,856 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