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. 03-02-00611-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2003

Texas Building Owners and Managers Association, Inc. Building Owners and Managers Association International Tanglewood Property Management Company Emissary Group 5599 San Felipe, Ltd. And the Real Access Alliance v. the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the State of Texas

This case concerns the scope of the Public Utility Commission's power to enforce the Building Access Statutes (Texas Utilities Code §§ 54.259-.261). Appellants, consisting of property management organizations and trade groups, sued the Commission, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Statutes are unconstitutional on their face and a permanent injunction. They argued the statutes cause a taking of their property without adequate compensation and that the Commission lacks delegated power to determine compensation. The district court declared the Statutes facially constitutional and denied injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the legislature constitutionally delegated to the Commission the power to determine 'reasonable' and 'nondiscriminatory' compensation, providing sufficient guidance and an adequate process for obtaining compensation.

Telecommunications regulationPublic Utility CommissionBuilding Access StatutesConstitutional lawTakings clauseDelegation of powerProperty rightsTelecommunications utilitiesCompetitive marketplaceFacial unconstitutionality
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 1996

Sorrentino v. Ronbet Co.

This case involved a building employee suing the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the Workers’ Compensation Law as a bar, was granted by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that a prior denial of a summary judgment motion did not prevent a later motion to dismiss during trial. The merits of the case distinguished it from similar precedents, primarily because documentary evidence proved the plaintiff remained the defendant's employee despite claims of a management company being the employer, supported by W-2 statements, mortgage applications, and lack of supervisory evidence from the management company. The listing of the management company as the employer with the Workers’ Compensation Board was deemed inconsequential since the identity of the employer was not disputed before the Board.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipDismissal of ComplaintSummary JudgmentTrial MotionDocumentary EvidenceSupervisionW-2 StatementMortgage Application
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03339 [205 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Tavarez v. LIC Dev. Owner, L.P.

Plaintiff Ruth Tavarez sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while employed by Collins Building Services, Inc. She alleged negligence and Labor Law violations against LIC Development Owner, L.P. LIC then filed a third-party action against Collins for indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Collins' motion to dismiss LIC's third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision did not apply to LIC and that common-law indemnification was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a 'grave injury'.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law ViolationsThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewGrave InjuryContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivares, Emilio v. Alfonso Mares, and Multi-Building, Inc.

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Building Owners & Managers Ass'n v. Public Utility Commission

This case concerns an appeal by 'the Building Owners' challenging the Public Utility Commission’s power to enforce the Building Access Statutes. The Building Owners argued that the statutes, which mandate access for telecommunications utilities, constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without adequate compensation and that the Commission lacks the authority to determine such compensation. The district court upheld the statutes as facially constitutional. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the legislature constitutionally delegated to the Commission the power to determine reasonable and non-discriminatory compensation, guided by sufficient statutory standards, and rejected the facial unconstitutionality claim.

Telecommunications LawRegulatory PowerPublic Utility CommissionBuilding Access StatutesProperty RightsConstitutional LawTakings ClauseDue ProcessStatutory InterpretationDelegation of Authority
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 1997

Crean v. Queens Boulevard Tenants Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint filed by a building employee against the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job. The court ruled that the complaint was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff was prevented from asserting that his employer was the building’s managing agent rather than the defendant, having already accepted workers’ compensation benefits on the basis that the defendant was his employer. Furthermore, evidence showed the defendant issued W-2s, paid wages, benefits, and workers’ compensation insurance, and the plaintiff was injured while repairing the defendant’s building, establishing the plaintiff as a 'special employee' of the defendant. The decision was unanimously affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusivity ProvisionsSpecial EmployeePersonal InjuryBuilding EmployeeEmployer-Employee RelationshipW-2WagesBenefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. SFDS Development

A construction worker sustained injuries after falling 20 feet from a roof that unexpectedly collapsed, having not been provided with any safety equipment. The defendants, SFDS Development and San Francisco Houses, Inc., were the building owners. The Supreme Court initially denied the worker's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the owners' cross-motions for common-law indemnification against the worker's employer, Catspaw Construction Corp. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the owners' cross-motions for indemnification, finding that Catspaw had direct control over the worksite.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationElevated WorksiteSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Rice v. West 37th Group, LLC

Plaintiff's decedent, James Rice, a steamfitter, was injured in November 2004 after falling from a short, unsecured ladder while installing a sprinkler system. He commenced an action against the building owner, general contractor, and subcontractor Cord, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Cord and Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims against other defendants, but granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the owner and general contractor. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its decision, finding no readily available adequate safety device to absolve defendants of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and dismissed the appeal regarding spoliation sanctions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawElevation-related injurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesWorker NegligenceAppellate DivisionSpoliation of EvidenceConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,779 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