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
Mar 02, 1981

Rutherford v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

This case involves an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitrator's award. The petitioner, an employee of Brooklyn Union Gas Company, was injured during employment and received workers' compensation and no-fault benefits. After settling a third-party action, the workers' compensation insurer, Utilities Mutual Insurance Co., obtained a lien on the recovery. The core issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement from the no-fault carrier for the lien amount, based on the Court of Appeals' decision in Grello v Daszykowski and subsequent amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 29. An arbitrator found in favor of the petitioner, but the Supreme Court vacated the award, arguing Grello should not be applied retroactively. The appellate court reversed this decision, confirming the arbitrator's award by citing the applicable statute and regulation.

Arbitration awardworkers' compensation lienno-fault benefitsInsurance Law §671Workers' Compensation Law §29Grello v Daszykowskiretroactivityappellate reviewstatutory interpretationinsurance regulation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1990

Sancimino v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

The decedent, a construction worker, died in a natural gas explosion while installing a sewer manhole. His estate commenced an action against Brooklyn Union Gas Company, which then initiated a third-party action against Cafco Construction Corporation, the decedent's employer. A jury found both Brooklyn Union and Cafco negligent, but concluded that Cafco's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court, Kings County, entered a judgment of $2,650,000 in favor of the plaintiff against Brooklyn Union. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, as the appellate court found that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, citing that Brooklyn Union's failure to properly maintain its service lines could have caused the gas leak.

wrongful deathnegligenceproximate causegas explosionsewer manholejury verdictappellate reviewdamagesconstruction workerBrooklyn Union Gas
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrah v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of A & M Woodworking, Inc., sustained personal injuries from a fire while using highly flammable contact cement in an apartment in Brooklyn. This incident occurred after a service representative from Brooklyn Union Gas Company had inspected the same kitchen area due to a gas odor complaint. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in igniting and leaving on the gas pilot light of the stove, which caused the fire. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending the plaintiff's and a co-worker's negligence was the sole cause. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but on appeal, the order was reversed, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed, as no triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's negligence as a proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceFlammable MaterialsGas CompanyProximate CauseAppellate ProcedureWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityFire Incident
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. v. City of Pharr

Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. (RGV) and Southern Union Gas Co. (SUG) appealed a trial court's order certifying a class of Texas municipalities that have franchise agreements with RGV or SUG. The dispute arose because Edinburg, and later Pharr, contended that RGV was not including revenue from transporting natural gas for other companies in its gross receipt calculations for franchise fee payments. Pharr sought to represent a class of approximately ninety municipalities with similar agreements. The appellants argued that the certification order was void due to the presiding judge's disqualification and that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class without proper notice and by failing to meet the requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The appellate court affirmed the certification order, finding no disqualifying interest for the judge and that the class met the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements, and that due process was afforded.

Class Action CertificationInterlocutory AppealFranchise AgreementsGross Receipts CalculationMunicipalitiesTexas Civil Procedure Rule 42Judge RecusalDue ProcessNumerosity RequirementCommonality Requirement
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1998

Saenz v. Southern Union Gas Co.

Alfonso Saenz, an employee of Southern Union Gas Company (SUG), sustained a work-related back injury and later settled his worker's compensation claim. Despite his medical limitations, Saenz sought light duty or accommodations to return to work, which SUG denied, ultimately leading to his discharge. Saenz then filed a lawsuit, alleging discrimination under Texas Labor Code Ann. § 451.001, claiming he was discriminated against for pursuing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted SUG's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Saenz challenged the summary judgment, but the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding he failed to file a timely response or properly present evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Summary JudgmentWorker's Compensation DiscriminationDisability AccommodationTexas Labor CodeNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentTimeliness of ResponseAppellate ReviewEmployment LawRule 166a(i)Rule 166a(c)
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2002

Conway v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Plaintiff Katrina Conway commenced an employment discrimination lawsuit against Brooklyn Union Gas Company. After extensive settlement discussions, the parties, through their attorneys, reached an oral agreement for $40,000, conversion of termination to resignation, a neutral reference, and withdrawal of all pending lawsuits. Conway subsequently attempted to renege on the agreement, stating she did not understand the terms regarding dismissal of pro se actions and felt the monetary amount was insufficient. The defendant moved to enforce the settlement, seeking an injunction against future lawsuits and attorney's fees. Magistrate Judge Levy recommended enforcing the oral settlement but denying the injunction and attorney's fees, finding that Conway's attorney had apparent authority and the parties intended to be bound. District Judge Gershon adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, declaring the oral settlement enforceable.

Employment DiscriminationOral Settlement EnforcementAttorney Apparent AuthorityIntent to be BoundVexatious LitigationInjunction DenialAttorney Fees DenialRule 11 SanctionsContract LawFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lombardi v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

A claimant, an inspector for Brooklyn Union Gas Company, was injured in a slip and fall in 1994 but returned to normal duties after a period of light duty. He subsequently retired under an early retirement incentive program. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a prior decision, determining that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market and thus denied his claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The court also rejected the claimant’s argument that the Board improperly considered his pension benefits in its analysis of voluntary withdrawal, stating that pension election is a relevant factor in such determinations.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEarly RetirementDisability ClaimSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPension ConsiderationsAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Law § 30
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harsch v. City of New York

Darrin Harsch, a construction worker, and his wife sued Brooklyn Union Gas Company (BUG), Felix Equities, Inc., and the City of New York for personal injuries sustained from a fall on an alleged dangerous work site. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied BUG's cross motion for summary judgment on all claims. On appeal, the order was modified; the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to all defendants on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding no height- or gravity-related risk. However, the denials of summary judgment for BUG regarding Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims were affirmed, as BUG failed to establish a lack of control or notice of the dangerous condition, and failed to refute the Industrial Code violation claim.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 240 (1)Labor Law 241 (6)Common-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionWork Site ControlIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(2)
References
20
Case No. Nos. 01-04-01277-CV to 01-04-01287-CV; 01-04-01326-CV to 01-04-01333-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Jim Wells County v. EL PASO PRODUCTION OIL

This case involves multiple Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) alleging fraud and conspiracy against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units claimed the Oil Companies undervalued oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes through various manipulative schemes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial court dismissed the lawsuits due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Tax Code provides a comprehensive and exclusive regulatory scheme for addressing property appraisal disputes, including those involving alleged fraud, through the Appraisal Review Board, thereby divesting district courts of original jurisdiction.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxOil & GasFraudConspiracyUndervaluationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesAppraisal Review BoardTax Code
References
17
Case No. 03-98-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1998

Tana Oil and Gas Corporation and Teco Gas Marketing Company v. Garth C. Bates

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, regarding a class certification order. Appellants Tana Oil and Gas Corporation and Teco Gas Marketing Company challenged the certification of a class represented by Garth C. Bates and Richard G. Cernosek. The class action alleges breach of contract related to oil and gas royalties and breach of the implied covenant to market gas. Tana argued the trial court abused its discretion in finding commonality, predominance, and superiority for class certification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding no abuse of discretion in the preliminary ruling on merits or the findings supporting class certification.

Class ActionOil and Gas RoyaltiesBreach of ContractImplied Covenant to MarketClass CertificationCommonalityPredominanceSuperiorityInterlocutory AppealAbuse of Discretion
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,579 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