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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01355
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The plaintiff, Victor Naula, commenced an action for personal injuries against Utokilen, LLC, and others. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) found Naula's employer, Specialized Dental Construction, Inc., uninsured and Adapt Construction, LLC, to be the general contractor, awarding Naula workers' compensation benefits. Utokilen and Nancy Marin-Rojas D.D.S., P.C., initiated a third-party action against Specialized Dental for common-law indemnification and contribution. Specialized Dental moved for summary judgment, asserting exclusivity under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, but Utokilen and Marin-Rojas cross-moved, arguing Specialized Dental could not invoke § 11 due to its uninsured status. The Supreme Court granted the cross-motion and denied Specialized Dental's motion. The Appellate Division dismissed Adapt Construction, LLC's appeal as it was not an aggrieved party and affirmed the Supreme Court's order against Specialized Dental Construction, Inc.

Personal InjuriesWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryUninsured EmployerAppellate PracticeCollateral Estoppel
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees for the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP) and the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) from the Texas Secretary of State. The parties incurred fees defending an election contest lawsuit (Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis's eligibility for the State Senate. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity for such a suit and that the Brimer suit fees were 'in connection with' the primary election, given the broad interpretation of the phrase and the nature of the eligibility challenge. The court reversed the trial court's judgment denying reimbursement, rendered judgment for TCDP and TDP to receive their stipulated attorney's fees, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, including the denial of attorney's fees for the underlying lawsuit due to the Secretary of State's discretionary authority.

Election LawAttorney FeesReimbursementSovereign Immunity WaiverElection ContestCandidate EligibilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureDeclaratory JudgmentUltra Vires Doctrine
References
33
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01354
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order which granted motions to renew filed by third-party plaintiffs Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Michael Boyle, and Tricon Construction, LLC along with C.P. Plaza Limited Partnership. The motions sought to vacate a previous order that had dismissed their third-party claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against AMZ Construction Services, Inc. Upon renewal, these claims were reinstated. The court found that new expert reports submitted by the plaintiff, Robert Deschaine, raised a factual dispute regarding whether he sustained a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically brain injuries that rendered him unemployable in any capacity. This issue of fact justified the renewal and reinstatement of the third-party claims.

Appellate PracticeRenewal MotionSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawBrain InjuriesUnemployabilityProcedural Law
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. 2018-11587 (Index No. 20807/15)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal from an order in a fourth-party action concerning negligence and breach of contract. Conklin Property, LLC, a fourth-party plaintiff, sued Total Management Corp. and David Lande (appellants), alleging they failed to procure adequate insurance for a construction project after a worker was injured and died, leading to a disclaimer of coverage by the insurer. The Supreme Court denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint and granted Conklin's cross-motion to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Conklin sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The court also determined that a special relationship existed between Conklin and the appellants, justifying the addition of a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Furthermore, the court found the actions to be within the statute of limitations, accruing on the date of the worker's injury.

NegligenceBreach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityNegligent MisrepresentationFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsFourth-Party ActionInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02063
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Appellate Division, First Department, considered an appeal concerning a Supreme Court order that granted a motion to sever and stay a second third-party action, and denied a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in severing and staying the second third-party action, citing that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. It further noted that Gateway and Woodworks' subcontracts provided for joint and several liability, allowing for apportionment in a separate proceeding. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting Gateway's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against it. This dismissal was based on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff, Gateway's employer, did not sustain a grave injury.

Appellate PracticeThird-Party ActionsSeverance and StaySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryJoint and Several LiabilitySubcontractor Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 5,569 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