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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. 05-22-00219-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2023

Jeffrey Leon Barrett v. the State of Texas

Jeffery Leon Barrett was convicted of continuous trafficking of persons and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing the trafficking statute was unconstitutional as applied to him, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, and that the trial court erred by denying a requested jury instruction. The case involved Barrett and his wife forcing their adopted children into unpaid labor in their dog-breeding business, subjecting them to abuse and isolation. The Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Barrett forfeited his as-applied constitutional challenge and that the evidence was sufficient. The court also found no error in denying the requested jury instruction.

Continuous trafficking of personsforced laborchild abuseparental rightsconstitutional challengeevidentiary sufficiencyjury instructionTexas Penal Codeappellate reviewdog breeding business
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barrett v. Dutchess County Legislature

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review resolutions by the Dutchess County Legislature regarding the reconstruction of the former Dutchess County Infirmary. These resolutions included a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and authorization for serial bonds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, partly finding petitioners lacked standing and treating an amended petition as a nullity. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The appellate court found that David and Didi Barrett lacked standing due to insufficient proof of unique environmental injury, but David Griffith, Ashlyn Barton, and James Barton established standing based on their proximity and alleged specific environmental harm. The court further concluded that the Legislature had complied with SEQRA's requirements, having taken a "hard look" at environmental concerns before issuing the negative declaration.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingArticle 78 ProceedingNegative DeclarationDutchess CountyMunicipal LawLand UseAppellate DivisionInjunctive Relief
References
31
Case No. 03-12-00734-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2013

Donna Hopper, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and on Behalf of the Estate of Robert Hopper, and as Guardian of Dylon Hopper and Fallon Hopper Keegan Hopper Justin Hopper And Trevor Hopper v. Argonaut Insurance Company and Kimberly Barrett, Adjuster

Appellants, collectively known as the Hoppers, including Donna Hopper and the children of Robert Hopper, appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted to appellees Argonaut Insurance Company and Kimberly Barrett. The Hoppers had sued Argonaut and Barrett for allegedly mishandling and delaying workers' compensation death benefits claims following Robert Hopper's death from a fentanyl overdose. Their claims encompassed common-law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unconscionability, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, alongside statutory claims under the Texas Insurance Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing *Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ruttiger*, which established the Texas Workers' Compensation Act as the exclusive remedy for unfair settlement practices and abolished the common-law duty of good faith and fair dealing in this context. The court found no evidence that Argonaut or Barrett misrepresented the terms of an insurance policy, but rather that the dispute concerned factual coverage, which is addressed by the Act's administrative dispute resolution process.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClaimsBad FaithSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices ActFentanyl OverdoseWork-Related InjuryExclusive Remedy
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03146
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Barrett v. Magnetic Construction Group Corp.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal from an order denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and dismissing a third-party complaint. Anthony Barrett, an employee of MJE, Inc., was allegedly injured while working on a renovation project for Magnetic Construction Group Corp., a general contractor. Magnetic, facing a personal injury suit from Barrett, initiated a third-party action against MJE for contractual indemnification. Both Magnetic and MJE sought summary judgment regarding the existence and applicability of a written indemnification contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that issues of fact remained as to whether a written contract containing an indemnification provision was in effect between Magnetic and MJE on the date of the accident.

Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawSubcontract agreementRetroactive contractDemolition workPersonal injuryAppellate reviewQuestion of fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barrett v. Howland

The plaintiffs appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appeal was based on the plaintiffs' alleged failure to establish that Donald Barrett suffered a 'serious injury' under Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and the dismissal of a property damage claim. The appellate court agreed that the plaintiffs did not present sufficient objective evidence of a 'serious injury,' affirming that part of the judgment. However, the court found that the Supreme Court improperly dismissed the cause of action for damages to the plaintiffs' motor vehicle, as the defendants' motions were not directed at this claim and no evidence was presented on the issue. Consequently, the order and judgment was modified to reinstate the third cause of action for property damage and otherwise affirmed.

Personal InjuryProperty DamageSummary JudgmentSerious InjuryInsurance Law § 5102 (d)Objective EvidenceSubjective ComplaintsAutomobile DamagesAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. M2009-02636-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2012

State of Tennessee v. Jerome Sidney Barrett

The defendant, Jerome Sidney Barrett, was convicted of second-degree murder for a 1975 homicide after DNA evidence linked him to the victim's blouse and inmate testimony reported his admissions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress DNA evidence, finding probable cause despite a recklessly made statement in the affidavit. The court also affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss due to a 33-year pre-indictment delay, acknowledging the evolving DNA technology. Furthermore, the court upheld the admission of inmate testimony regarding the defendant's prior killings and affirmed the jury-imposed 44-year consecutive sentence.

HomicideSecond Degree MurderDNA AnalysisForensic ScienceSearch Warrant ValidityDue Process ViolationPre-Indictment DelayInmate InformantsWitness CredibilityEvidentiary Rules
References
74
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01883 [181 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Barrett v. BSR, LLC

The claimant, Brendan Barrett, sustained a back injury while working and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, which was established by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier sought administrative review from the Workers' Compensation Board. However, the Board denied their application (RB-89 form) because it failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2) (ii) by not specifying when the noted objections were interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for review due to the carrier's failure to provide a complete response to question 15 on the form.

Workers' Compensation Board ReviewAdministrative ProcedureAppellate Division Third DepartmentForm Completion RequirementsRB-89 FormProcedural ComplianceObjections and ExceptionsDiscretionary DenialWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2009

Timmons v. Barrett Paving Materials, Inc.

The case involves appeals from a judgment concerning injuries sustained by Joseph Timmons on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to Labor Law claims (action No. 1) and a dispute over insurance coverage (action No. 2). The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to Barrett, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200 claims, was affirmed on appeal, with the court concluding these statutes were inapplicable to the accident's circumstances. Furthermore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that Schneider Brothers Corporation had a duty to defend Barrett in the Timmons action and that Barrett was an additional insured under Colony Insurance Company's policy.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectIndemnification AgreementAdditional InsuredWorkers' CompensationIndustrial Code ViolationContractual Duty to Defend
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2017

Barrett v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Brian Scott Barrett challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his disability benefits application. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found Barrett not disabled, concluding he could perform light work despite impairments like a right knee meniscal tear, left shoulder rotator cuff tear, neck and low back degenerative disc disease, and depressive disorder. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. Barrett moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing errors in weighing medical opinions, RFC determination, and credibility. The Court denied both motions for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case to the ALJ, citing the ALJ's failure to properly apply the treating physician rule to Dr. Dowling's opinions and to clarify reliance on a Single Decisionmaker's RFC assessment.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActTreating Physician RuleAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityDepressive DisorderKnee InjuryShoulder InjuryBack PainNeck Pain
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 170 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