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. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

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. 03-01-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

David Aston D/B/A Aston Landscape & Construction and Aston Landscape & Construction, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

The case involves an appeal filed by David Aston d/b/a Aston Landscape & Construction and Aston Landscape & Construction, Inc. against the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the appellants failed to file a timely perfecting instrument. The trial court's judgment was signed on September 7, 2000, making the notice of appeal due by October 9, 2000. Appellants' Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Motion for New Trial were also filed past their respective deadlines. Despite a request from the Clerk for proof of timely filing, no response was received, leading to the dismissal.

JurisdictionAppeal DismissalTimelinessNotice of AppealMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawAppellate ProcedureTexasCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

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

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candela v. New York City School Construction Authority

Plaintiff Calogero Candela sustained injuries when a window sash fell on him at a construction site. He brought a claim under Labor Law § 200 against the New York City School Construction Authority, Spacemaster Building Systems, LLC, and TDX-Becom. A jury initially found in favor of the defendants, implicitly concluding they lacked notice of the defective windows. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the jury had no reasonable basis to reject testimony indicating the defendants, particularly Spacemaster, had actual or constructive notice of widespread window balance system defects prior to the accident.

Construction AccidentWindow DefectLabor LawPremises LiabilityNoticeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFalling Object
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest Construction Co. v. Laughlin

This action involves claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County for James and Debbie Laughlin by Forrest Construction Company, LLC. Forrest Construction filed a breach-of-contract action against Mr. Laughlin and a quantum meruit action against Mrs. Laughlin, claiming Mr. Laughlin breached the contract by failing to pay. The Laughlins counterclaimed for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court initially found Mr. Laughlin in material breach, but also awarded damages to the Laughlins for negligent construction. On appeal, the Court found that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by failing to provide proper documentation of costs and abandoning the project. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Mr. Laughlin breached the contract and the awards to Forrest Construction. It affirmed that the Laughlins were excused from giving notice to cure defects due to Forrest Construction's material breach. The case was remanded to the trial court to re-evaluate the damages for negligent construction and to address the issue of piercing the corporate veil against Thomas Naive.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractNegligent ConstructionQuantum MeruitCorporate Veil PiercingDamagesMaterial BreachHome ConstructionCost Plus ContractAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
Case No. W2017-01269-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2018

Patrick Durkin v. MTown Construction, LLC

A homeowner sued a construction company for breach of contract and negligence following significant water damage during a roof replacement. The trial court awarded damages to the homeowner and denied the construction company's counterclaim. On appeal, the construction company challenged the damage calculation and the denial of its counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the counterclaim and reversed the damage award, finding the trial court improperly used judicial notice to determine diminution in value. The case was remanded for the trial court to redetermine damages based on the reasonable cost of repair.

Homeowner LawsuitConstruction DefectsBreach of ContractNegligenceProperty DamagesDiminution in ValueCost of RepairUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewJudicial Notice
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

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. 2020-01-0494
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2021

Mitchell, Sebastian v. AECOM d/b/a Shimmick Construction, Inc.

The employee, Sebastian Mitchell, alleged a work-related hand injury leading to emergency surgery, which the employer, AECOM d/b/a Shimmick Construction, Inc., contested on grounds of untimely notice and causation. The trial court awarded medical benefits but denied temporary disability, determining that while employee had a reasonable excuse for initial late notice, he failed to provide timely notice after understanding the injury's work-related connection, yet the employer demonstrated no sufficient prejudice. On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the award of medical benefits and remanded the case. The Board upheld the trial court's finding that the employer was not sufficiently prejudiced by the late notice and that the preponderance of evidence supported the likelihood of a compensable injury arising from employment.

Work-related hand injuryInfection and cellulitisTimeliness of noticeEmployer prejudiceMedical benefits awardTemporary disability denialCausation assessmentCredibility of witnessAppeals Board reviewOrthopedic surgery
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,328 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