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 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. 08-25-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

LKQ Automotive D/B/A Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. and Jesus Duron v. Adan Robert Romo

LKQ Automotive and Jesus Duron appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against Adan Robert Romo. Romo, an LKQ commercial truck driver, was injured on the job and sued Appellants. Appellants sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Romo signed, but Romo argued he was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Romo met his burden of proving he was exempt from the FAA's arbitration provisions, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable under federal law.

Arbitration AgreementFAA ExemptionTransportation WorkerInterstate CommerceEmployment LawPersonal Injury ClaimTexas Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewMotion to Compel ArbitrationSummary Procedure
References
34
Case No. 03-03-00587-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Luzstella Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corporation

This is a summary judgment case where Luzstella Arbelaez appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Just Brakes Corporation. Arbelaez sued Just Brakes for vicarious liability after an employee, Brian Paul, collided with her while on a breakfast run for his manager and co-workers. The district court ruled that Paul was not within the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court reviewed the decision de novo, finding that Just Brakes failed to prove as a matter of law that Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment, citing evidence that the errand was a 'first assignment,' routinely done, benefited the employer, and Paul was reimbursed and 'on the clock.' Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating that genuine fact issues exist regarding Paul's employment scope.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployee NegligenceAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewFact IssueEmployer BenefitDeviation from EmploymentTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corp.

This case involves an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Just Brakes Corporation, where the district court determined that employee Brian Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment during a collision with Luz-stella Arbelaez. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the decision, considering evidence that Paul was on a manager-requested breakfast run, on the clock, and that this routine benefited the employer. The court concluded that Just Brakes failed to conclusively prove that Paul was not acting within the scope of his employment. Consequently, the summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to address the vicarious liability claim.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityNegligence LawsuitAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewEmployee ErrandManager InstructionBenefit to Employer
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2006

In re Tower Automotive, Inc.

Federal Insurance Company objected to a Bankruptcy Court order that recommended granting summary judgment to Tower Automotive, Inc. on Federal's obligation to pay defense costs for ERISA actions. Tower commenced the action seeking a declaration of insurance coverage for lawsuits related to its employee benefit plans. Federal denied coverage, citing an exclusion in its Fiduciary Liability Policy after Securities Actions were filed. The District Court, applying Michigan law, found both parties' interpretations of the exclusion reasonable but, due to ambiguity, construed the clause against Federal. Consequently, the District Court overruled Federal's objections and granted summary judgment in favor of Tower, affirming Federal's duty to defend.

ERISAFiduciary Liability InsuranceInsurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentPolicy Exclusion InterpretationContract LawMichigan Insurance LawFederal Court ReviewBankruptcy Court Findings
References
9
Case No. 01-06-00694-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. v. Burke

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. appealed a $155,000 jury verdict in favor of its employee, Ronald Burke, in a nonsubscriber negligence case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence and causation findings, and that the expert medical testimony was reliable. The court also upheld the exclusion of collateral source evidence regarding Burke's compensation for his injuries. Additionally, the court reviewed LMC's supersedeas bond, vacating a prior order and setting the bond at $74,868.02 based on LMC's determined net worth of $149,736.04. A separate appeal challenging the trial court's findings on the security issue was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Workplace InjuryNegligence ClaimNonsubscriber EmployerLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceCausation EvidenceExpert Medical TestimonyCollateral Source RuleSupersedeas BondNet Worth CalculationAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 13-CV-675
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2016

Pierre v. Planet Automotive, Inc.

Plaintiff Ghislaine Pierre sued Planet Automotive, Inc. and American Suzuki Financial Services alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act (MMWA), and state law claims of fraud and false advertising arising from her vehicle purchase and its financing. Defendant Suzuki moved for summary judgment. The Court denied Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's TILA claim and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding TILA disclosures and applying New York's assignee liability law for state claims. However, the Court granted Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's MMWA claim, concluding that the MMWA prohibits assignee liability where the assignee did not create the written warranty.

TILA violationMagnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty ActCommon law fraudFalse advertisingSummary judgmentAssignee liabilityRetail Installment ContractVehicle purchaseFinance chargesDisclosure statement
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. 2024-10-4374
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Isoyev, Bobur v. Nippon Paint Automotive Americas, Inc.

This case involves an employer's appeal from a trial court's interlocutory order concerning an employee's gradual injury claim. Employee Bobur Isoyev developed low back pain after being assigned new manual labor duties. Following his termination, an MRI revealed disc issues, and a neurosurgeon, Dr. David Wallace, attributed the injury and need for surgery to his work activities. The employer, Nippon Paint Automotive Americas, Inc., argued the injury was degenerative and that the employee failed to provide timely notice. The trial court found the employee likely to prove timely notice and credited the employee's medical expert. The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employee's notice requirement for a gradual injury was not triggered prior to filing his petition for benefit determination, as he was not deemed unable to perform his normal work duties before his termination. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGradual InjuryTimely NoticeMedical BenefitsCausationNeurosurgeon OpinionPain Management SpecialistDisc HerniationLast Day Worked RuleAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Pep Boys Automotive Super-Centers

Melvin C. Brooks sued his former employer, Pep Boys Automotive Supercenters, for wrongful discharge after sustaining a job injury and filing a workers' compensation claim. The trial court compelled arbitration based on a mutual agreement and dismissed Brooks's lawsuit in its entirety. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court improperly dismissed the entire case, as Texas procedural law requires a stay, not dismissal, when compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Consequently, the dismissal portion of the trial court's order was vacated. However, the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to address the order compelling arbitration, as mandamus is the appropriate remedy under the FAA.

arbitration agreementwrongful dischargeworkers' compensationemployment lawinterlocutory appealfinal judgmentFederal Arbitration ActTexas procedural lawmandamusappellate jurisdiction
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 144 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