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. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. v. Webster

A New York corporation, previously certified as a woman-owned business enterprise, was denied recertification in 1992, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The court rejected claims of inadequate explanation and procedural irregularities, finding the Hearing Officer's rationale, adopted by the Executive Director, provided sufficient basis for judicial review, and the hearing procedures were within discretion. Substantial evidence supported the denial of recertification, as control over petitioner's daily operations, including critical decisions on bidding, marketing, sales, purchasing, hiring, and field supervision, was shared between the sole shareholder Jean Zelezniak, her husband, and another employee. This shared control, coupled with Zelezniak's lack of expertise and the company's formation structure, led to the conclusion that the business was family-owned and not independently controlled by Zelezniak as required by regulations for woman-owned business enterprise status. Consequently, the determination to deny recertification was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Woman-owned business enterpriseRecertification denialCPLR Article 78Administrative reviewBusiness controlShareholder controlFamily-owned businessProcedural due processJudicial reviewExecutive Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. 01-1122
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2003

Page v. Structural Wood Components, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed when "work is completed" under Property Code Chapter 53 for perfecting a construction subcontractor's lien on retained funds. Petitioner Herman C. Page terminated his general contractor's agreement, and subcontractor Structural Wood Components, Inc. filed a lien affidavit 31 days later, but before subsequent contractors finished the project. The Court reversed the appellate court's judgment, holding that "work is completed" for the purpose of timely filing a lien affidavit when the specific contract is terminated or abandoned, not when the entire construction project is ultimately finished by other parties. Consequently, Structural Wood's affidavit was deemed untimely, and the judgment was rendered that the subcontractor take nothing.

Construction LawMechanic's LienMaterialman's LienProperty CodeContract TerminationSubcontractor RightsRetainage FundsStatutory InterpretationTimely FilingAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bardouille v. Structure-Tone, Inc.

Thomas Bardouille and his wife appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County, after Thomas was injured in an electrical explosion. The initial Supreme Court decision had granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint, which alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence against various defendants including building owners, managing agents, and contractors. The appellate court modified the initial order, finding triable issues of fact concerning direction and control and the applicability of Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4), thereby reinstating certain claims against Structure-Tone, Inc., Deutsche Bank, Tishman Speyer Trammell Crow Limited Partnership, and Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc. The appeal also addressed a third-party action against Bardouille's employer, Ohm Electric, partially dismissing contribution and indemnification claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 due to the absence of "grave injury" but affirming contractual claims. The appeal from an order denying reargument was dismissed, and the initial order was modified and affirmed in part.

Personal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentnegligenceappellate reviewconstruction accidentelectrical explosionindemnificationcontributiontriable issue of fact
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00338 [168 AD3d 1249]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Cerobski v. Structural Preserv. Sys.

Claimant Marek Cerobski filed for workers' compensation following a workplace injury in June 2015 to his right leg and back. The employer and carrier (Structural Preservation Systems) failed to timely file a prehearing conference statement, leading to preclusion from raising defenses, including a later-asserted fraud claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant had committed fraud, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, determining that the carrier's fraud claim was untimely and defenses were waived due to their procedural defaults. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the carrier's failure to file the required prehearing statement and demonstrate good cause for delay resulted in a proper waiver and preclusion of its defenses, including the fraud allegation and relitigation of established issues like accident and notice.

Workers' Compensation LawPrehearing Conference StatementWaiver of DefensesFraud ClaimCausal RelationshipAccident and NoticeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

Sherry Moore, an employee of the City of Marshall, suffered a work-related injury in January 1987. Although GAB Business Services, the insurance adjuster, initially paid for some medical expenses, they denied weekly workers' compensation benefits for her back injury, claiming it was from a separate incident at home. Moore successfully appealed to the Industrial Accident Board and later won a bench trial, which found her back injury compensable and led to a lawsuit against GAB, the City, and the Risk Pool for bad faith and deceptive trade practices. A jury found in favor of Moore against GAB for $25,000 in actual damages and $75,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against GAB, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that GAB acted in bad faith by denying the claim without a reasonable basis, and engaged in unfair practices, causing Moore mental anguish damages. The court also rejected GAB's defenses of governmental and official immunity and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsInsurance Bad FaithDeceptive Trade Practices ActSufficiency of EvidenceMental Anguish DamagesGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsEvidentiary Rulings
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 2,101 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