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 sustained injuries after falling while repositioning a prefabricated interior staircase at a construction site. The staircase abruptly fell into the stairwell, causing the plaintiff to fall on top of it. Plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for these injuries, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., and Rochester Friendly Senior Services. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants and third-party defendants appealed this amended order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the worksite was 'elevated' as per Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants' failure to provide necessary safety devices established their liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorksite SafetyStaircase AccidentElevated Work
References
3
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

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

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

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

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07967 [155 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2017

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

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which found United Hispanic Construction Workers, Inc. (UHCW) and nonparty David Rodriguez guilty of civil contempt. The contempt finding was due to their failure to adhere to a previously negotiated stipulation and court order entered on May 22, 2012, which outlined conditions for protests held by UHCW. As a result, UHCW was fined $1,000, Rodriguez $500, and attorney fees, costs, and disbursements were awarded. The court affirmed that the appellants clearly disobeyed an unequivocal mandate, thereby prejudicing the plaintiffs' business operations. Furthermore, the court properly exercised jurisdiction over David Rodriguez, president of UHCW, despite him not being personally served, given his active involvement in negotiating the stipulation and his personal violations of the court's mandates.

Civil ContemptStipulation ViolationCourt Order DisobedienceAppellate AffirmationJurisdiction over NonpartyCorporate Officer LiabilityFines and PenaltiesAttorney Fees AwardPrejudice to BusinessProtest Conditions
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiff, O’Neil Company, Inc., a subcontractor, sued Malan Construction Corporation, the prime contractor, and its bonding company under the Miller Act for $82,318.33 arising from a dispute during the construction of a plant for the Atomic Energy Commission in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that O’Neil, a foreign corporation, failed to qualify to do business in Tennessee, making its activities illegal and precluding it from maintaining the suit. The court examined Sections 1 and 2 of the Miller Act, concluding that Congress created a federal right for suppliers of labor and material on federal construction, a right not dependent on state laws or diversity jurisdiction. Citing cases like Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad Co. and Lyon v. Quality Courts United, Inc., the court emphasized that federal rights cannot be defeated by state limitations on the right to sue. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that state qualification statutes do not impede the enforcement of federal rights under the Miller Act, which provides broad protection for subcontractors on public works.

Miller ActSubcontractor RightsFederal JurisdictionForeign CorporationSummary Judgment MotionState Qualification LawsPublic Works ConstructionPayment BondFederal vs. State LawContract Dispute
References
23
Case No. 04-17-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit where two construction workers were injured and one killed when an unsecured toolbox fell from their foreman's trailer. The plaintiffs, Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, sued the foreman David Mora and employers Texas Sterling Construction Co. and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found the driver of the third vehicle not negligent and Texas Sterling grossly negligent, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions on the course and scope of employment, the defense of sudden emergency, and gross negligence attributable to Texas Sterling through its Corporate Safety Director, José González.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentSudden Emergency DefenseEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesLegal Sufficiency
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

E & R Construction Co., Inc. sued Guy H. James Construction Company and Federal Insurance Company under the Miller Act for breach of a subcontract related to the Cordell Hull Lock and Dam project. E & R presented twelve claims alleging material interference and breaches of contract by James, leading to increased costs and damages. The court found that James materially breached the contract through various actions, including wrongfully depositing shot rock, requiring extra work, and causing delays, entitling E & R to recover damages on several claims under a *quantum meruit* theory. However, the court denied claims regarding arbitrary dredge limits and dredge delay. The court also clarified that the surety, Federal Insurance Company, was not liable for certain delay and property damage claims.

Construction LawMiller ActSubcontractBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitDelay DamagesConstruction DisputesFederal CourtContract InterferenceSite Conditions
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 5,277 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