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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
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. 04-07-00752-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2008

in the Interest of J.O., a Child

The appellants, J.O.'s aunt and uncle, appealed the trial court's decision to appoint J.O.'s mother as the sole managing conservator and deny them access to J.O. They challenged the striking of a supplemental record, the application of the parental presumption, the exclusion of evidence regarding abuse and neglect by the mother, and the denial of access. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the appellants failed to preserve error on evidence exclusion, the parental presumption was not rebutted, and there was no statutory authority for aunts and uncles to request access, upholding the mother's fundamental parental rights. The court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Child CustodyManaging ConservatorshipParental PresumptionAppellate ProcedureExclusion of EvidenceOffer of ProofBest Interest of the ChildDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family Code
References
5
Case No. W2012-00191-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2012

Tikita Jones v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board & Shelby County Division of Health Services

Tikita Jones, a municipal employee, was terminated from her position with the Shelby County Division of Health Services for unauthorized access to her adult daughter's medical records. The termination was upheld by the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board and subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court. Jones appealed, claiming violations of due process rights and a lack of substantial evidence to support the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Jones received adequate notice of the charges and that substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that her actions constituted an impermissible access of patient information, beyond her job duties. The court specifically noted that accessing sensitive lab reports was outside her clerical specialist role and her testimony regarding authorization was inconsistent with her daughter's.

Employment terminationConfidentialityHIPAA violationMedical records accessDue processAdministrative lawJudicial reviewClerical specialistEmployee misconductPublic sector employment
References
26
Case No. 2022-06-2242
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2023

Comfort, Rachel v. Access Dental Lab

Rachel Comfort, an employee, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for a left shoulder, back, and neck injury, alleging it arose from continuous heavy lifting, pushing, and pulling, or a specific incident of falling boxes on either February 15 or February 20, 2022. The employer, Access Dental Lab, and its carrier, Federal Ins. Co., denied the claim, disputing the work-relatedness and date of injury. The Court found Ms. Comfort's testimony lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies regarding the date of injury and her refusal to watch surveillance videos that contradicted her account of the incident. The videos, dated February 15, 2022, showed empty totes falling next to her but not striking her, and she showed no apparent distress. The Court concluded that Ms. Comfort failed to prove a specific incident or a cumulative trauma condition caused her injury, and she did not provide expert medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her condition and employment activity. Consequently, her request for benefits was denied, and the case was set for a status hearing on August 7, 2023.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingBenefit DenialCredibility AssessmentCausationMedical EvidenceSurveillance VideoCumulative TraumaSpecific Incident InjuryTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman v. Schweiker

The plaintiff, Magdalena Roman, appealed a denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was previously remanded by the District Court to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a more specific determination regarding whether her physical impairments prevented her from returning to her former work. Subsequently, Roman filed an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Court denied this application, holding that Roman was not a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the EAJA. The Court reasoned that a remand for additional evidence, without a substantive determination on the merits of her disability claim, was not sufficient to establish her as a prevailing party.

Attorney's FeesEqual Access to Justice ActPrevailing PartyRemandSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsSocial SecurityAppellate PracticeStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,472 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