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. 03-08-00288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Texas Society of Professional Engineers v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and Cathy Hendricks, Executive Director

The Texas Society of Professional Engineers appealed the trial court's partial grant of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (TBAE) and its Executive Director. The Society sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the TBAE from initiating enforcement proceedings against licensed engineers for alleged violations of the Architecture Practice Act, asserting engineers are exempt and TBAE lacks jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea in part, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over most claims except those challenging TBAE rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order, concluding the Society lacked associational standing to pursue the broad relief requested under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. This was because such claims required a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of individual engineers' conduct, not pure issues of law.

JurisdictionAssociational StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPlea to the JurisdictionProfessional LicensingArchitectureEngineeringAdministrative LawRegulatory Authority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. JMB Architecture, LLC

The case involves Noe Rodriguez, an injured construction worker, who sued JMB Architecture, LLC, the construction manager, for negligence and Labor Law violations. Rodriguez sustained an eye injury while working on a private residence. Initially, the property owners were defendants, but they were later removed, and JMB became the sole defendant. The Supreme Court granted JMB's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that JMB's role was merely general supervision and lacked the requisite control over the work to be held liable as an agent or general contractor under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6).

construction injuryLabor Lawconstruction managerliabilitysummary judgmentappellate decisionworkplace safetyagencysupervisiongeneral contractor
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 09217
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Matter of Szokalski v. A-Val Architectural Metal Corp.

Claimant Roman Szokalski, a construction worker for A-Val Architectural Metal Corporation, filed a workers' compensation claim for a repetitive stress injury to his back and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and identified Arch Insurance Company as the responsible carrier. Arch's subsequent application to the Workers' Compensation Board for review or a rehearing was denied due to its untimeliness and failure to provide an excuse for not appearing at prior hearings. Arch appealed this denial. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing to consider the untimely review request or grant a rehearing.

Workers' CompensationRepetitive Stress InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeUntimely ApplicationRehearing DenialWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewAppellate DivisionInsurance Carrier LiabilityFailure to AppearJudicial Discretion
References
6
Case No. 08-70200
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. v. ACM-Texas, LLC (In re ACM-Texas, Inc.)

This case concerns a protracted dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corporation (ACM) and ACM-Texas, LLC, over mineral mining rights in Culberson County, Texas. TAA filed various claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass, while ACM counter-claimed for similar issues. The Court deemed the initial 1999 Letter Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of material terms and non-compliance with the statute of frauds. Ultimately, TAA was awarded $7,125,073.08 for ACM's unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass related to unlawfully mined materials. ACM, in turn, received $75,000 in reliance damages under promissory estoppel for the construction of a mill, with all other claims and counterclaims denied.

Mining DisputeMineral RightsContract DisputeUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelConversionTrespassBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingLetter Agreement EnforceabilityFraud Claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2003

Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401 (K) Retirement Funds v. Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing

The plaintiffs, Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401(k) Retirement Funds, sued defendant Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing, alleging violations of ERISA Section 515 and a collective bargaining agreement for failing to submit to an audit. Golden Eagles moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and the requirement for arbitration. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, finding that personal jurisdiction existed over Golden Eagles due to ERISA's nationwide service of process provision, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York as the Funds are administered there. Furthermore, the court determined that the Local 8A-28A Funds, as independent non-signatory entities, were not bound by the arbitration clause present in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Consequently, Golden Eagles' motion to dismiss was denied.

ERISAPersonal JurisdictionVenueArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee BenefitsTrust FundsMotion to DismissNationwide Service of ProcessMinimum Contacts
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

Gaskin v. Harris

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The order denied her motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross-motion to dismiss her complaint, which sought damages for legal malpractice and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment due to procedural prematurity. However, it reversed the dismissal of the legal malpractice claim, finding the plaintiff adequately alleged negligence concerning workers' compensation advice and settlement guidance. The court upheld the dismissal of the breach of contract claim as duplicative and the claim for emotional distress damages, limiting recovery in malpractice actions to pecuniary loss.

Legal MalpracticeSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss ComplaintCPLR 3211CPLR 3212Breach of Contract ClaimWorkers' CompensationPecuniary Loss DamagesEmotional Distress DamagesAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal in a legal malpractice action. Defendant James P. Farrell, Jr., a lawyer, represented Six G’s Contracting Corp. in a personal injury action. Farrell failed to timely notify the State Insurance Fund (SIF) of a third-party action against Six G’s, leading SIF to disclaim coverage. Six G’s assigned its malpractice claim to Joseph Gazza and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court denied Farrell’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order, concluding that the complaint sufficiently stated elements of legal malpractice and that the issue of SIF's waiver of disclaimer was a question of fact, not determinable as a matter of law.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceInsurance DisclaimerSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAssignment of ClaimWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationAppellate ReviewCausation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1995

Greenwich v. Markhoff

The plaintiff sustained injuries in a 1989 construction accident and retained law firms, Markhoff & Lazarus, and subsequently Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, P. C., to represent his interests. These firms allegedly limited their representation to a Workers’ Compensation claim and failed to initiate a personal injury action against the responsible parties before the Statute of Limitations expired. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against both law firms. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint against Markhoff & Lazarus due to the timing of counsel substitution and the applicable Statute of Limitations for malpractice. However, the dismissal of the claim against Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, P. C. was found to be erroneous, as the action was timely, and the scope of their professional duty was not limited by their retainer agreement. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, reinstating the malpractice claim against Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, P. C., while affirming the dismissal pertaining to Markhoff & Lazarus.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsPersonal Injury ClaimScope of RepresentationRetainer AgreementDismissal of ComplaintReinstatement of ClaimAppellate ReviewProximate CauseActual Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2015

Allied Waste North America, Inc. v. Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.

This memorandum addresses multiple summary judgment motions in a legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty case. Plaintiffs, Allied Waste North America, Inc., and BFI Waste Services, LLC, sued three law firms and their members for alleged negligence in an underlying state court litigation that resulted in a $7.2 million verdict. The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment regarding the statute of limitations, finding factual disputes about when the plaintiffs should have discovered the malpractice. It also denied summary judgment on the legal malpractice claims, citing conflicting expert testimony. The court granted partial summary judgment on damages, limiting the plaintiffs' recovery to their $2.5 million self-insured retention and litigation costs, while denying the application of the collateral source rule. Furthermore, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, rejecting defendants' affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and comparative fault based on the plaintiffs' refusal to settle the underlying case. Lastly, the court granted Levine Orr Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim but denied it for the breach of fiduciary duty claim due to remaining factual questions.

Legal MalpracticeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleDamages LimitationExpert Witness TestimonyProfessional JudgmentAttorney Negligence
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2001

Marcano v. Litman & Litman, P.C.

This case concerns an action for legal malpractice brought by a laborer who suffered a construction site injury. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant-appellant law firm, specializing in workers' compensation, committed malpractice by failing to advise him about potential third-party personal injury claims or to verify if such claims were being handled by the defendant-respondent personal injury law firm. The defendant-appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no such duty since the plaintiff had already consulted with a personal injury lawyer. However, the Supreme Court, New York County, denied this motion, a decision later unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found a material issue of fact, emphasizing the appellant's affirmative duty to ensure the plaintiff understood the limits of its representation and its alleged repeated assurances that his personal injury claims were "being taken care of."

legal malpracticeworkers' compensationpersonal injuryduty of caresummary judgmentlaw firmattorney-client relationshipprofessional responsibilitythird-party claimsappellate decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 499 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