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. 2024 NY Slip Op 06315 [233 AD3d 555]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Rodriguez v. Manhattan Restoration LLC

This case concerns an appeal where the plaintiff, Francisco Rodriguez, alleged negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against Manhattan Restoration LLC, a general contractor. Rodriguez was attacked by an employee of TMF Construction LLC, a subcontractor hired by Manhattan Restoration. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Manhattan Restoration. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding no vicarious liability as the assailant worked for the subcontractor, not Manhattan Restoration. The court also determined that Manhattan Restoration did not own the property, exercised only general supervisory authority, and lacked knowledge of the assailant's violent propensities. Furthermore, the argument regarding the absence of a safety manager was deemed speculative.

negligent hiringnegligent supervisionnegligent retentionvicarious liabilityrespondeat superiorconstruction projectsubcontractorgeneral contractorsummary judgmentduty to keep premises safe
References
5
Case No. 2014-05-0003
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2014

Jewell, Kevin v. Cobble Construction and Arcus Restoration

Kevin Jewell, an employee, filed for an expedited hearing seeking temporary disability and medical benefits after injuring his back while working for Cobble Construction, a subcontractor of Arcus Restoration. Cobble Construction denied the claim, asserting Jewell was an independent contractor and his injury was outside the scope of employment. The court found Jewell to be an employee and that his injury occurred within the scope of his work. Consequently, the court granted Jewell's request, ordering Arcus Restoration, as the principal contractor, to provide medical treatment and pay temporary total disability benefits.

Employee Status DeterminationIndependent Contractor vs. EmployeeScope of EmploymentBack Injury ClaimTemporary Total DisabilityMedical Benefits AwardSubcontractor LiabilityTennessee Workers' Compensation LawExpedited Hearing ProcedureLumbar Radiculopathy Diagnosis
References
5
Case No. 06-24-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Jennifer Cambas and Lawrence Cambas v. Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC

Jennifer and Lawrence Cambas (Appellants) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC (Appellee) from the 57th District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Cambases had hired Trinity for water damage repairs and later requested voluntary upgrades and a roof repair. Disputes arose regarding the completion timeframe and quality of work, leading to the Cambases stopping payments and Trinity suing for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The Cambases counterclaimed for various contract and fraud-related issues. The jury found that the Cambases materially breached the written contract first, Trinity substantially performed, and awarded Trinity damages for breach of contract and quantum meruit for the oral agreement. On appeal, the Cambases challenged the sufficiency of evidence for breach, Trinity's right to recovery, quantum meruit recovery, and attorney fees. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, Trinity's right to recovery was not barred, quantum meruit recovery was not barred, and Trinity was entitled to attorney fees.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubstantial PerformanceMaterial BreachAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewTexas LawConstruction ContractHome Renovation
References
35
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05817
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Glowczynski v. Suburban Restoration Co., Inc.

Claimant Jan Glowczynski, an asbestos laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim in October 2016 for back, knee, hip, and shoulder injuries, attributing them to repetitive work duties since 1992, with an onset date of September 3, 2016. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, challenging the causal relationship. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, a decision subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found a lack of established causal link between the claimant's employment and his medical conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to provide competent medical evidence to prove an occupational disease, as medical opinions either lacked causation statements or failed to adequately correlate the conditions with specific work duties.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal RelationshipRepetitive Use InjuryAsbestos LaborerDegenerative DiseaseArthritisBack PainKnee PainShoulder Pain
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Hernandez v. KNS Bldg. Restoration, Inc.

Claimant Guadalupe Hernandez sought workers' compensation benefits for knee and shoulder injuries sustained on his first day of work for KNS Building Restoration, Inc., who, along with insurer Zurich American Insurance Company, denied an employment relationship and coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the claimant's testimony, establishing the claim and finding KNS to be the responsible employer covered by a Zurich wrap-up policy, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of an employer-employee relationship and the Board's credibility determinations. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on administrative review. The decision therefore upholds the finding that Hernandez was an employee of KNS and was injured at its construction site.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationInsurance CoverageConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewNew EvidenceWrap-up PolicyEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Functional Restoration Associates

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed a decision holding Continental liable for medical treatment costs provided by Functional Restoration Associates (FRA) and Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE) to an injured employee. The trial court dismissed Continental's suit, citing a lack of statutory basis for judicial review of the Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental argued for both statutory and inherent rights to judicial review. The appellate court found no explicit or implied statutory right but concluded that Continental had an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision affected Continental’s vested property interest (money). The court also rejected the Commission's argument regarding untimely filing. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judicial ReviewMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawDue ProcessProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationRemandTexas LawAppellate Court
References
30
Case No. 05 Civ. 0200 (CM)
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2008

Virga v. BIG APPLE CONST. & RESTORATION INC.

The plaintiffs, including John Virga and various Mason Tenders District Council Funds, sued defendants Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for unpaid fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The defendants failed to respond to discovery and a notice to admit, leading to a default judgment. The court initially granted summary judgment, awarding damages but denying imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision regarding audit costs, finding that a 'catch-all' provision in the CBA allowed for their recovery. The motion for reconsideration was granted, and imputed audit costs were awarded in addition to the previously granted damages.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementFringe BenefitsDues CheckoffsPAC ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilityAudit Costs
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04574
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Matter of Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. State of New York Dept. of Labor

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Suburban Restoration Co., Inc., and others, challenging a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor. The Commissioner found that Suburban willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to employees on three public work projects, falsified payroll records, and assessed a 16% annual interest on underpayments along with a 15% civil penalty. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the determination and found it to be supported by substantial evidence. The court upheld the Commissioner's findings regarding underpayments, willful non-compliance, falsified records, and the method of calculating back wages, as well as the proportionality of the civil penalty.

Prevailing WagesPublic WorksWage UnderpaymentFalsified Payroll RecordsCivil PenaltyLabor Law ComplianceArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer Liability
References
14
Case No. 14-23-00605-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In Re All Repair and Restoration D/B/A All Day USA, Inc., Joe Saavedra, and National Casualty Company v. the State of Texas

Relators, All Repair and Restoration d/b/a All Day USA, Inc., Joe Saavedra, and National Casualty Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. They sought to compel Judge Fredericka Phillips of the 61st District Court of Harris County to withdraw an order granting consolidation and to abate a personal injury suit (cause number 2021-62055). This personal injury suit was filed by Romny Sanchez, who was injured in a vehicle accident while working for All Dry. Sanchez had also initiated a judicial review suit (cause number 2023-10851) after the DWC determined he was not an All Dry employee. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the petition, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the judicial review suit with the personal injury suit and in denying the relators' motion to abate the personal injury suit until the judicial review suit is resolved. The court cited the distinct legal issues of the two cases and the potential for prejudice and jury confusion as reasons for its decision.

MandamusConsolidationAbatementWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewPersonal InjuryAbuse of DiscretionExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate Procedure
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 588 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