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 29, 1978

Di Bernardo v. Heimroth

This appeal arises from an order denying an employer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heimroth. The central legal question addresses whether an employer can be held liable to a third-party tort-feasor for their own negligence, even though Workers' Compensation Law generally bars direct employee actions against the employer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, reiterating that Workers' Compensation Law does not serve as a complete defense for an employer in actions involving a third-party tort-feasor's independent negligence. The prior ruling in Di Bernardo v Heimroth was cited as establishing a basis for employer contribution to a third-party tort-feasor, a point found to be dispositive of the current appeal.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party Tort-feasorEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewSection 29Workers' Compensation Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Queens Transit Corp.

This case addresses whether a plaintiff in a negligence action can recover for basic economic loss from a third-party tort-feasor when a worker's compensation carrier has asserted a lien against the judgment proceeds. The Court reverses an order granting a new trial, holding that the plaintiff may not recover for basic economic loss from the third-party tort-feasor under these circumstances. Referencing Grello v Daszykowski, the court clarifies that if the workers' compensation carrier executes on its lien, the no-fault carrier must bear the loss, implying the plaintiff should seek recourse from the no-fault carrier rather than the third party for basic economic loss. This decision reiterates that subdivision 1 of section 673 of the Insurance Law prohibits recovery for basic economic loss from a covered third-party tort-feasor.

negligencethird-party liabilityworkers' compensationinsurance lawno-fault benefitsstatutory interpretationlieneconomic losstort-feasorappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lavender v. Hofer

This personal injury case originated from an intersection collision resulting in the death of June Hofer. The initial defendant, Robert W. Springate, passed away, leading to his daughter, Sharon Lavender, being substituted as his personal representative. The core issues on appeal involved the recovery of punitive damages against the deceased tort-feasor's estate and the appellees' (June Hofer's parents) entitlement to damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship. The appellate court determined that punitive damages are not recoverable against a deceased tort-feasor's estate, reasoning that the purposes of punishment and deterrence cease upon death. However, the court affirmed the award for mental anguish and loss of companionship, citing a recent Texas Supreme Court decision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSurvival StatuteMental AnguishLoss of CompanionshipDeceased Tort-feasor EstateAppellate ReviewDamages Award
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transamerica Insurance v. Lumbermen's Casualty Insurance

Petitioner, both no-fault and workers' compensation carrier for Anthony Lomonoco, paid Lomonoco's medical bills and lost wages after a 1974 three-car accident. After Lomonoco settled with the third-party tort-feasor, petitioner's workers' compensation division was reimbursed, and Special Term ordered petitioner's no-fault division to pay Lomonoco $41,567.06 in no-fault benefits. Subsequently, petitioner's no-fault division initiated arbitration against the respondent, the third-party tort-feasor's insurer, but the claim was denied as untimely filed, a decision upheld by Special Term. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that the claim was one of subrogation, not indemnification, and was therefore subject to a three-year Statute of Limitations from the accident date, rendering it untimely.

No-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationSubrogationIndemnificationStatute of LimitationsArbitrationInsurance LawCPLRAppellate ReviewTimely Filing
References
14
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coley v. Arnot Ogden Memorial Hospital

The plaintiff was injured during the course of her employment when a ladder collapsed, and the defendant's employees subsequently discarded it, thereby preventing her from identifying a third-party manufacturer or distributor. This action limited her to workers' compensation benefits. Plaintiff then commenced an action against the employer, alleging negligence, prima facie tort, and a violation of Penal Law § 215.40 for tampering with physical evidence. Special Term granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that while the Workers' Compensation Law did not bar a common-law action against the employer for impairing an employee's right to sue a third-party tort-feasor, the plaintiff's specific causes of action were without merit.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party ActionSpoliation of EvidencePenal Law 215.40Prima Facie TortNegligence ClaimSummary Judgment AffirmationAppellate DecisionEmployer LiabilityImpairment of Legal Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chambers v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Kenneth Chambers, injured by chemical exposure, settled a workers' compensation claim with Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA) and pursued a tort action against a third-party tort-feasor. TEIA intervened for its previous payments. Chambers sought to include estimated future medical expenses in TEIA's subrogation interest to increase his attorney's fee award, but the trial court limited fees to past payments and denied Chambers any attorney's fees. On appeal, the court addressed whether future medical payments should be included in the subrogation interest for attorney's fee calculation and if Chambers' attorney was due fees. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the "benefit accruing" to TEIA includes both past payments and relief from future liability, and that the trial court abused its discretion by not apportioning attorney's fees to Chambers' attorney for his active role in securing the settlement.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSubrogation InterestFuture Medical ExpensesThird Party Tort-feasorSettlementReimbursementStatutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionAppeal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 975 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