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?

A demolition worker, Jones, fell 10-12 feet when a permanent floor collapsed during renovation. He sued the owner, 414 Equities LLC, and general contractor, Artimus Construction, Inc., under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, arguing an elevation-related risk and lack of safety devices, and the floor's decay. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that a permanent floor collapse only posed an elevation-related risk if foreseeable, and plaintiff's evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court also denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the general contractor and granted the contractor's cross-motion for leave to serve a late answer. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, concluding that foreseeability is required for Labor Law § 240(1) liability in permanent floor collapse cases, and finding the general contractor's brief delay in answering excusable.

Demolition workLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related riskPermanent floor collapseSummary judgmentForeseeabilityAppellate reviewWorker safetyConstruction site accidentGeneral contractor liability
References
57
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

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

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2000

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

Juanita Cruceta, an employee of Waldbaum, Inc., was injured after tripping at work and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. Along with her husband, Qulvio Cruceta, she initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Funnel Equities, Inc., the building owner and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waldbaum. Funnel moved for summary judgment, asserting the workers' compensation exclusivity provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), arguing it was an 'alter ego' of Waldbaum. The Supreme Court denied Funnel's motion. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unresolved factual issues regarding Funnel's 'alter ego' status with Waldbaum and its parent company, A&P, and whether Funnel possessed exclusive knowledge of these pertinent facts.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityFactual IssuesAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityBuilding Owner
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Defendant Chartered New England Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging it was time-barred and failed to state a claim, while also seeking an order for plaintiffs to post security for costs and attorney's fees. The lawsuit, brought by Competitive Associates, Inc., asserted violations of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, including claims related to failure to provide a prospectus and a conspiracy to defraud in the purchase of securities from entities like Fantastic Fudge, Inc. The court largely denied the motion to dismiss, finding questions of fact regarding the discovery of untrue statements and the alleged fraudulent scheme, thereby sustaining claims under §§ 12(1), 12(2), 17(a) of the 1933 Act, and §§ 15, 10(b) of the 1934 Act. Although it denied the request for attorney's fees security, the court ordered plaintiffs to post a single original bond of $2,400 for costs, citing the considerable expenses defendants would incur during discovery.

Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentFailure to State a ClaimSecurity for CostsBroker-Dealer LiabilityProspectus OmissionConspiracy to Defraud
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Alfred P. Reeves sued Continental Equities Corporation of America and Continental Corporation alleging wrongful discharge under federal securities laws and implied contract, severance benefits under New York law and ERISA, and unreimbursed business expenses. After initial federal claims were dismissed and some remanded by the Second Circuit, Reeves filed an Amended Complaint, adding defamation and demands for a jury trial and punitive damages. Continental moved to dismiss certain state law claims and strike the jury demand and punitive damages requests. The court dismissed the federal securities law claim (again) and the defamation claim for lack of specificity and potential untimeliness. It allowed the ERISA severance benefits claim and the remaining state law claims (wrongful discharge, unreimbursed business expenses) to proceed under pendent jurisdiction. The jury trial demand for ERISA benefits was allowed to stand for further discovery, and punitive damages for ERISA were deferred, but punitive damages for the breach of contract claim were stricken under New York law.

wrongful dischargeERISAseverance benefitsimplied contractdefamationpunitive damagesjury trialfederal securities lawspendent jurisdictionsummary judgment
References
27
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06570 [121 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2014

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

This case involves a dispute between Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC (plaintiff) and Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corporation (defendant) concerning a 10-year elevator maintenance contract. The defendant ceased services, alleging unsafe premises. The plaintiff subsequently sued for breach of contract and fraud. The Supreme Court partially dismissed the plaintiff's claims, specifically regarding consequential damages for breach of contract and the entire fraud cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the breach of contract claim was adequately pleaded, the limitation on liability for consequential damages was enforceable, and the fraud claim was properly dismissed as it was not collateral to the contract.

Breach of ContractFraudElevator Maintenance AgreementConsequential DamagesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Condition PrecedentLimitation on LiabilityAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. 05-23-01126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2024

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

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC, and Culberson Midstream LLC (collectively Culberson) sought permission to appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment on Energy Transfer LP's fraud claims, which stemmed from a dispute over a gas gathering contract. The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas denied the petition. The court found that Culberson failed to establish that the interlocutory order involved a controlling question of law with a substantial ground for difference of opinion, a requirement for permissive appeals. The court concluded that existing case law adequately addresses issues like disclaimers of reliance, justifiable reliance, and red flags in fraud claims, thus providing sufficient guidance without requiring a permissive appeal.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsGas Gathering ContractJustifiable RelianceDisclaimer of RelianceControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This Memorandum & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a case concerning false advertising under the Lanham Act and various state law claims. Plaintiffs, NewMarkets Partners LLC, CAM NewMarkets Partners LP, and Marie-Frances Mathes, allege that Defendants Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & CIE. S.C.A., CAM Private Equity Consulting & Verwaltungs GmbH, and BVT Beratungs-, Verwaltungsund Treuhandgesellsehaft für Internationale Vermorgensanlagen MBH, misused their proprietary investment model and names to market competing German funds. The court granted BVT-B's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unfair competition claim against Oppenheim. However, motions to dismiss the false advertising claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unjust enrichment claim against CAM were denied. The tortious interference claim against CAM was denied as moot due to an amended complaint.

Lanham ActFalse AdvertisingPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentJoint Venture AgreementPrivate Equity FundsExtraterritorial Jurisdiction
References
75
Case No. 94-E-0952 et al.
Regular Panel Decision

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

This court opinion addresses a petition by electric utilities seeking to annul orders from the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding competition in the electric industry. The utilities challenged the PSC's authority to mandate restructuring plans, its rejection of full stranded cost recovery, and its compliance with the State Administrative Procedure Act. The court upheld the PSC's broad jurisdictional powers, affirming its right to encourage competitive markets and deny full stranded cost recovery when deemed not "just and reasonable" for consumers. It also found the PSC's policy statements were not "rules" requiring formal procedures. Consequently, the court denied the utilities' motion to annul the PSC's orders, affirming the PSC's discretion in transitioning to a more competitive electric market.

Electric Utility RegulationDeregulationCompetitionPublic Service CommissionRate MakingStranded CostsRetail WheelingState Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewLegislative Delegation
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 340 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