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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. M2020-01368-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2021

All Access Coach Leasing, LLC v. Jeff McCord, Commissioner Of Labor And Workforce Development, State of Tennessee

All Access Coach Leasing, LLC, a tour bus leasing company, appealed an agency's determination, affirmed by the chancery court, that it misclassified its tour bus drivers as independent contractors rather than employees for unemployment tax purposes. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found substantial and material evidence supporting the agency's decision that the drivers were employees under the 'ABC test' of the Tennessee Employment Security Law, specifically failing Part B. This was due to the drivers performing required pre-trip and post-trip duties, such as inspections and cleaning, on the company's premises, which meant their services were not performed 'outside of all' of the taxpayer’s places of business.

Workers' CompensationUnemployment TaxIndependent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationABC TestCommon Law TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessStatutory Interpretation
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

This case involves Medicaid recipients, providers, and an association in El Paso County, Texas, suing the Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Albert Hawkins. Plaintiffs allege that HHSC's low Medicaid payment rates have led to inadequate access to medical services for El Paso Medicaid recipients, violating several provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Court found that Recipient Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Equal Access had standing for claims under the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, but Provider Plaintiffs did not have third-party standing for their patients. All other claims under the Medicaid Act, Equal Protection Clause, and most of the Supremacy Clause claim were dismissed. The Court ultimately found only one cognizable claim: Recipient Plaintiffs' claim that HHSC's low payment rates violate the Equal Access Provision. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal due to substantial grounds for difference of opinion on controlling questions of law, particularly concerning standing and the private right of action under the Equal Access Provision post-Gonzaga.

Medicaid ActHealthcare AccessPayment RatesStanding DoctrinePrivate Right of ActionSupremacy ClauseEqual Protection ClauseRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionInterlocutory Appeal
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. ADJ560768 (SJO 0256445)
Regular
Nov 29, 2011

MARK CAMPAGNA vs. AMERICAN CORP./AMERICAN AIRLINES; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to lien claimant Access Mediquip's petition. The WCAB found that Access Mediquip's objection to the Order Dismissing Lien was timely filed, despite the WCJ's initial belief to the contrary. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the dismissal order and remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision hinges on the correct calculation of the response deadline for the Notice of Intention to Dismiss Lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienLien claimantPinnacle Lien ServicesAccess MediquipWCJPermanent disabilityMedical treatment
References
0
Case No. ADJ3491952
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

ELISEO CHACON vs. PICO RIVERA PALLETS INCORPORATED, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Access Mediquip, seeking payment for surgical implants. The Workers' Compensation Judge disallowed the lien, finding the claimant not credible regarding the actual costs of the implants, despite acknowledging their provision. Access Mediquip filed a petition for reconsideration, but the Appeals Board dismissed it. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed 26 days after the judge's decision was mailed, exceeding the statutory 20-day period extended by 5 days for mail service.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationTimelinessDismissalWCJ decisionLumbar fusion surgeryAccess MediquipPico Rivera PalletsCalifornia Insurance Company
References
4
Case No. 12-23-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2023

In Re: Laura Lee Redman, Individually, Richard Redman, Individually, Brian G. Redman, Individually, Kristy L. Redman, Individually, Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman Legacy, LP v. the State of Texas

Relators (Laura Lee Redman, Richard Redman, Brian G. Redman, Kristy L. Redman, Community Access, Inc., Redman Management, LLC, and Redman Legacy, LP) filed an original proceeding challenging a trial court order that compelled them to respond to written discovery. The underlying action was brought by Kenny S. Frederick against the Relators for negligence and gross negligence related to personal injuries sustained by Devon Frederick at a care facility. The Relators argued the discovery requests were overbroad, encompassing irrelevant time periods, locations, and subject matter, and included financial information and employment files. The Court of Appeals found many discovery requests to be overbroad as a matter of law and conditionally granted the writ in part, directing the trial court to impose limitations on these requests. However, the court denied the Relators' arguments regarding confidential patient information and work product privilege due to waiver.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeOverbreadthTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTexas LawInterrogatoriesRequests for ProductionAbuse of Discretion
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

In re Ruben R.

This case concerns an appeal by the Law Guardian and the Commissioner of Social Services against a Family Court decision that allowed press access to child abuse and neglect proceedings involving the surviving siblings of Elisa Izquierdo. The appellants argued that public dissemination of sensitive details would cause irreparable harm to the children, whose identities had already been widely publicized. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the potential trauma to the children, supported by psychological evidence, outweighed the press's interest in free access, especially given the prior media disclosures. The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding children's emotional well-being and privacy in such sensitive proceedings.

Child Protective ProceedingsPress AccessCourtroom ClosurePrivacy Rights of ChildrenChildren's Emotional Well-beingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFirst AmendmentJudiciary LawPsychological Harm
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 516 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