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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Neil Tagare filed an action against NYNEX entities and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on color and national origin, retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including Rule 17(a) regarding real party in interest and ripeness for the contract claim, and the applicability of Title VII and HRL to individual defendants. The court denied dismissal for breach of contract against NYNEX Network Systems Company and upheld HRL claims against individual defendants based on aiding and abetting. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants and partially granted dismissal of the breach of contract claim against other defendants, while denying the motion for a more definite statement.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationColor DiscriminationRetaliationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureIndividual Liability
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case, heard by the Supreme Court of Texas, addresses whether statutory caps apply to punitive damages and prejudgment interest in health-care-liability claims. Lexa Auld, administratrix for Martha Hary, sued Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation for medical negligence at its nursing home. The Court affirmed that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 41.007 caps punitive damages, not Article 4590i, and clarified that Article 4590i’s cap does include prejudgment interest on damages subject to the cap. The decision also upheld the constitutionality of applying the cap to survival claims and Horizon's "health care provider" status, partially affirming and partially reversing the lower court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePunitive DamagesActual DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory InterpretationDamages CapSurvival ActionHealth Care Liability ClaimConstitutional Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2003

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Cardinal Health Staffing Network, Inc. (Cardinal) appealed the denial of a temporary injunction sought to enforce a non-competition covenant and prevent unfair competition by its former employee, Jay Bowen. Bowen, a former scheduler, joined a competing firm, CompleteRx, after leaving Cardinal, prompting Cardinal's lawsuit alleging breach of covenants and misappropriation of trade secrets. The trial court denied the injunction without stating reasons, leading Cardinal to argue error based on irreparable injury or the inapplicability of such a requirement under the Covenants Not to Compete Act or the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Cardinal failed to prove irreparable injury and clarifying that the Covenants Not to Compete Act governs final remedies, not preliminary relief, thus requiring proof of irreparable injury for a temporary injunction. The court also declined to adopt or apply the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine under the circumstances.

Non-competition CovenantTemporary InjunctionTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionIrreparable InjuryAdequate Legal RemedyCovenants Not to Compete ActInevitable Disclosure DoctrineEmployment AgreementBreach of Contract
References
97
Case No. 05-13-00748-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2015

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Parallel Networks, LLC appealed a trial court's judgment affirming an arbitration award in favor of Jenner & Block, LLP. Parallel argued the termination provision of the contingent fee agreement was unconscionable and against public policy, and that Jenner abandoned its client. The arbitrator found Jenner had just cause to terminate representation due to unpaid expenses and that the termination fee provision was enforceable. The arbitrator also found Jenner was entitled to recover $3,000,000 under quantum meruit or breach of contract, plus a percentage of future settlement proceeds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Parallel's arguments and finding no error in the arbitrator's decision or exclusion of evidence.

Arbitration AwardAttorney FeesContingent Fee AgreementContract TerminationQuantum MeruitPublic PolicyUnconscionabilityLegal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary DutyPatent Infringement Litigation
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04031 [240 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2025

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Jose L. Rosario, an employee of Paragon Technology Group, Inc., suffered injuries after falling from an unsecured A-frame ladder while installing security cameras on property owned by Horizon Networks, Inc., and leased by Cara Mia Restaurant, Inc. Rosario and his wife filed a consolidated action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied Rosario's summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted Horizon's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, denying Horizon's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding triable issues of fact concerning the accident's cause and potential Labor Law violations. The court also affirmed the denial of common-law indemnification for Horizon against Paragon, citing unresolved factual issues regarding supervision.

A-frame ladderfall from heightLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(e)(3)summary judgmentcommon-law indemnificationtriable issues of factAppellate Divisionpremises liability
References
16
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 30507(U)
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case involves an action for personal injuries brought by Joseph S. LaRosa, Jr., and his wife against multiple defendants, including Internap Network Services Corp., Paetec Communications, Inc., and 111 Chelsea, LLC. The plaintiff was injured while lifting electrical equipment on a loading dock, leading to claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims but denied summary judgment for defendants on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. On appeal, the court modified the order, granting summary judgment to all defendants on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, thereby dismissing the action entirely. The court also found the owner, 111 Chelsea, LLC, was entitled to contractual indemnification from Sprint Communications Company, L.P. and Paetec Communications, Inc., remitting the matter for a hearing on damages for these cross-claims.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyLoading Dock AccidentMeans and Methods DoctrineElevation Related Risk
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Olympia Gunn, an overnight nurse, was injured while working for Baptist St. Anthony’s Health Network (BSA), which operates a voluntary employee injury program instead of worker's compensation. After her injury, Gunn signed a waiver under Texas Labor Code § 406.033, releasing BSA from liability in exchange for program benefits. She subsequently sued BSA for negligence, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, citing the waiver. On appeal, Gunn challenged the waiver's validity based on various statutory requirements and the express negligence doctrine. The appellate court found the waiver compliant and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation WaiverPost-Injury WaiverSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimGross Negligence ClaimTexas Labor CodeConspicuousness DoctrineExpress Negligence DoctrineEmployee Injury ProgramAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00210 [157 AD3d 1093]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case concerns Delance Minefee's claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that United Stations Radio Networks, Inc. was liable for contributions, ruling that 'callers' were statutory employees under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a) as persons engaged in the performing arts. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The court found the Board's interpretation of the statute irrational, clarifying that the individual's services, not the overall artistic endeavor, must require artistic or technical skill. As the callers' services lacked such skill, the statutory presumption of employment was not met. The matter was remitted to the Board to assess whether a common-law employer-employee relationship existed.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipPerforming ArtsStatutory EmployeeLabor Law InterpretationAppellate DivisionReversed and RemittedRadio BroadcastingArtistic SkillTechnical Skill
References
2
Case No. 2-07-174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2008

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Cairn K. Baker appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted in favor of Cook Children’s Physician Network, which was based on the exclusivity provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Baker, a licensed vocational nurse, alleged mental trauma damages for assault and false imprisonment by Dr. Shannon Watts during a personnel action meeting. The Court of Appeals determined that Baker's claims, seeking mental trauma damages arising principally from a personnel action, are noncompensable under the Act, and thus the exclusivity provision does not bar them. Alternatively, even if not classified as mental trauma injuries, the claims for intentional torts are also not barred by the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusivity provisionSummary JudgmentMental anguish damagesAssaultFalse ImprisonmentIntentional tortsPersonnel actionNoncompensable injuryAppellate review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiff Luc D. Allen, an employee of Marais Trenching, Inc., was seriously injured while repairing a trenching machine on a fiber optic cable project. He and his wife filed an action against Telergy Network Services, Inc. (owner) and Mastec North America, Inc. d/b/a Wilde Construction (general contractor), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as a contractual third-party beneficiary claim. The defendants and third-party defendant Marais Trenching, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and the third-party beneficiary claim were reviewed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no control by Telergy or Wilde over the repair work, no violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (f), and that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the highway work permit or the contract between Telergy and Wilde.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentTrenching AccidentConstruction Site SafetyThird-Party Beneficiary ClaimAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityUnsafe Work Condition
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 795 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