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
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

Eunice Villanueva appealed a summary judgment favoring Structural Repair, LLC and other appellees, stemming from a dispute over foundation repair. An initial arbitration between Villanueva and Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P. resulted in an award for Villanueva on a DTPA violation, which was subsequently confirmed by the trial court. Villanueva then sued the appellees, who were related to Advanced Foundation, asserting similar claims of fraud and DTPA violations. The appellees successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata based on the prior arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration award constituted a final judgment, the appellees were in privity with Advanced Foundation, and the claims were identical to those previously litigated, thus satisfying all elements of res judicata. The court also clarified that Villanueva's attempt to pierce the corporate veil did not introduce a new substantive claim precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppealRes JudicataArbitration AwardPrivityCorporate VeilTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActFoundation RepairFraudCivil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission

Petitioner, operator of the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, sought to recover repair costs and replacement energy costs incurred after a steam generator rupture in 1982. The rupture was caused by a metal piece inadvertently left in the generator during 1975 repairs. Respondent, the Public Service Commission, found the petitioner imprudent for this oversight, denying recovery of the $2.5 million repair costs but allowing retention of $10.2-$14.1 million in replacement energy costs. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging respondent's decision on grounds of departing from established ratemaking principles and lack of evidentiary support. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, finding it rational, reasonably based, and supported by substantial evidence.

Nuclear Power Plant SafetyUtility Rate RecoveryRegulatory ImprudenceEmployee NegligenceSteam Generator FailureAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPublic Service CommissionRatemaking PrinciplesJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd.

This case involves Vought Aircraft Industries' claim against its marine cargo insurers, Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd., XL London Market, Limited, and Dornoch Limited, for breach of policy and other claims. A horizontal stabilizer manufactured by Vought was damaged during rail shipment, a peril covered by the marine cargo insurance policy. Vought repaired the stabilizer and sought reimbursement for direct repair costs, overhead expenses, and expediting costs for replacement stabilizers. The court largely dismissed Vought's claims for expediting costs and overhead expenses, finding most were not covered by the policy, though it noted ambiguity in certain policy clauses regarding some shipping costs and overhead. All of Vought's extra-contractual claims, including breach of good faith and fair dealing, unfair insurance practices, breach of repair agreement, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, were dismissed. XL London Market, Limited's defense asserting it acted solely as an agent for a disclosed principal was denied, indicating a factual dispute.

Marine Cargo InsuranceInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodePolicy AmbiguityOverhead CostsExpediting Costs
References
73
Case No. 13-20-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

Jaime Martinez D/B/A IMJ Truck Repair v. Hauling 365, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a default judgment issued by the County Court at Law No. 10 of Bexar County, Texas, concerning a negligence and breach of contract claim related to a transport truck repair. The appellant, Jaime Martinez d/b/a IMJ Truck Repair, challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial, the sufficiency of evidence for lost profits, and the award of attorney's fees to the appellee, Hauling 365, LLC. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, finding the first Craddock element (no conscious indifference) unsatisfied. It reversed the attorney's fees award due to a lack of presentment of claim, and remanded the issue of lost profits for a new trial due to legally and factually insufficient evidence.

Default judgmentNegligence claimBreach of contractMotion for new trialCraddock testConscious indifferenceLost profitsSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesPresentment requirement
References
24
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. 10-06-00010-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2006

Olshan Foundation Repair Company of Dallas, LLC D/B/A Olshan Foundation Repair Company v. Jason Seay and Jacqueline Seay

The appellant, Olshan Foundation Repair Company, failed to file its brief on time. The Court notified the appellant that the case was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Olshan Foundation Repair Company informed the Court that it no longer wished to pursue the appeal. No other party filed a response to continue the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Appeal DismissalWant of ProsecutionFailure to File BriefAppellate ProcedureTexas Appellate CourtVoluntary DismissalMemorandum OpinionTrial Court No. 41990Case ManagementRule 38.8(a)(1)
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,604 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