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
Jun 20, 2005

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Anthony Fioranelli sued News Building Corporation for injuries sustained during employment. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy because News Building Corporation was effectively the plaintiff's employer, New York News, Inc., due to corporate merger. Prior motions to dismiss on these grounds were denied on procedural issues. This court, however, found that New York News, Inc. was indeed the building's owner at the time of the accident under Business Corporation Law § 906(b)(2). Consequently, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided the plaintiff's sole remedy, dismissing the action against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation exclusivityCorporate mergerBuilding ownershipCPLR dismissal motionLaw of the Case doctrineBusiness Corporation LawEmployer liabilityPersonal injury claimProcedural lawSubstantive law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiffs, members of General Building Laborers’ Local Union No. 66 and beneficiaries of its Training Fund, sued FGH Realty Credit Corporation, the Union, its current and former Trustees, and the Building Corporation. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA and state law, and participation in prohibited transactions, stemming from a fraudulently concealed and unauthorized $4 million loan transaction in 1989 involving the Training Fund, Building Corporation, and FGH. FGH moved to dismiss the ERISA claims based on the statute of limitations, and state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted FGH's motion to dismiss the ERISA claims and a specific state law claim, finding plaintiffs failed to adequately plead facts for the 'fraud or concealment' exception to ERISA's statute of limitations, but noted plaintiffs could seek leave to amend. FGH's motion to dismiss the remaining state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was denied, as federal claims still exist against other defendants, maintaining judicial efficiency.

ERISABreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentEmployee Benefit PlanLoan TransactionLabor UnionTrustees LiabilityMotion to DismissSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
36
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. 08-18-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2018

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

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. appealed a substantial civil penalty levied by the City of El Paso's Building and Standards Commission concerning the 'American Furniture Building'. The dispute originated from compliance issues and the assessment of an initial $2.1 million fine, later reduced to $1.2 million by the district court. Caples Land argued violations of due process, the discriminatory application of a vague Vacant Building Ordinance, and that the fine constituted a regulatory taking exceeding the property's value. The district court upheld the Commission's order as legal and enforceable, but modified the daily civil penalty amount. This appeal seeks reversal or remand of that final judgment.

Building StandardsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingExcessive FinesProperty LawMunicipal LawAppellate ProcedureEl Paso County
References
20
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

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

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04295 [172 AD3d 655]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order regarding a dispute between Capital Business Credit LLC (plaintiff) and Tailgate Clothing Company, Corp. (defendant). Plaintiff purchased accounts receivable from a nonparty related to clothing manufacturing. Defendant paid some invoices but left 12 outstanding. Defendant claimed an equitable recoupment credit for payments made to the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) for severance pay to Honduran workers, which became due after the manufacturer violated local law by not paying severance. The Court found issues of fact precluding summary judgment on the account stated claim and correctly sustained the equitable recoupment defense, noting it was based on transactions linked to the defendant's licensing and manufacturing agreements. The court also rejected plaintiff's waiver and estoppel arguments.

Equitable recoupmentAccount stated claimSummary judgmentAccounts receivableBreach of contractTimeliness of objectionLicensing agreementManufacturing agreementHonduran labor lawSeverance pay
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2011

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

Plaintiff, a carpenter employed by third-party defendant Eurotech Construction Corporation, sustained injuries after being struck by an energized and exposed electrical wire, causing him to fall from an A-frame ladder while working on a new building. The building was owned by defendant United Nations Federal Credit Union, with Tishman Construction Corp. as the general contractor and Petrocelli Electric Co. as the electrical subcontractor. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). However, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion. The court found that the ladder was inadequate to prevent the fall and was a proximate cause of the injury, and that the defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (3) and (4) by failing to de-energize or prevent contact with the live electrical circuit.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentElectrical HazardLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseWorkplace InjuryNew York LawBuilding Construction
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,249 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