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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2011

Kausal v. Educational Products Information Exchange Institute

The plaintiff initiated legal action against the defendant, seeking damages for the breach of an employment contract and a violation of Labor Law article 6. The core of the dispute revolved around an employment agreement where the defendant, through its project manager, sponsored the plaintiff for an H1B work visa, promising a minimum annual salary of $46,500 and tuition benefits. Despite these terms being formalized in visa application documents signed by the defendant's representative, the plaintiff alleged non-payment in accordance with the agreement. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the defendant by misclassifying the plaintiff as an independent contractor. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the complaint and awarding judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability, concluding that a valid employment contract existed and the plaintiff was indeed an employee under Labor Law, remitting the case for a trial on damages.

breach of contractemployment contractLabor LawH1B visawage disputewrongful dismissalappellate reviewnonjury trialdamagesliability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apex Industrial Construction Corp. v. Village of Lake George

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract and awarding damages to the defendant village on its counterclaim. The plaintiff claimed the village breached the contract by failing to provide a clear construction site, due to a plumbers' union picket line protesting the village's award of plumbing work to a nonunion employer. The court found that the picketing was an act of a third party, not attributable to the village, and that the village lawfully awarded contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, even if nonunion. Therefore, the plaintiff's abandonment of the job constituted a breach of contract, justifying the damages awarded to the village. The judgment was affirmed.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawLabor DisputePicket LineNonunion EmployerMunicipal ContractsLowest Responsible BidderContract AbandonmentDamages AwardedThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2003

Miller v. Huntington Hospital

This case involves an appeal by the defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff was an at-will employee, and the employer's personnel handbook contained an explicit disclaimer, thus precluding a breach of contract claim. Furthermore, the negligence claim was deemed barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, as it did not allege an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to the employee.

at-will employmentbreach of contractnegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211motion to dismissemployment handbookdisclaimerintentional tortexclusivity provision
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America v. Lee National Corp.

This suit was brought by an international union against an employer for alleged breaches of collective bargaining contracts concerning employees at the Company’s former Conshohocken and Youngstown plants. The Union's second claim sought arbitration or $2 million for a special distribution upon discontinuance of operations. The third claim sought $2 million for alleged breach of contract due to the discontinuance of a life insurance plan for retired employees or arbitration. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the arbitration claim within the second cause of action but denied the motion regarding the merits of that claim. The court entirely granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action concerning the life insurance plan for retired employees.

Collective Bargaining AgreementContract BreachSummary Judgment MotionArbitration RightsSeverance PayLife Insurance BenefitsRetired EmployeesPlant ClosureLabor LawUnion Dispute
References
21
Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Employers Casualty Company Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Genesys Cost Management Systems, Inc. Corporate Systems, Ltd. Employers National Risk Management Services, Inc. And Havis Wayne Dortch v. Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund El Paso I.S.D. Irving I.S.D. Hico I.S.D. And Aransas Pass I.S.D.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 18,488 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