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. 05-14-01042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2016

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Alessandro Udell

This case examines whether an injured worker's claim falls under the exclusive remedy of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act or a common-law negligence claim. Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) appealed a trial court's judgment awarding damages to Alessandro Udell, an injured worker assigned to TI by Volt Services Group. The appellate court found that Udell was an employee of TI for workers' compensation purposes, or at least a statutory/deemed employee, and that TI maintained workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the Texas Workers' Compensation Act served as the exclusive remedy, barring Udell's negligence claim. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of TI.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStatutory EmployerIndependent ContractorNegligence ClaimEmployment StatusRight to ControlTexas LawReversed JudgmentDirected Verdict
References
64
Case No. Nos. 27-29
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2021

The People v. Kenneth Slade , The People v. Kieth Brooks, The People v. Charo N. Allen

This opinion addresses three appeals consolidated to determine the facial sufficiency of accusatory instruments when a translator assists witnesses with limited-English proficiency. Justice Garcia, writing for the majority of the New York Court of Appeals, affirmed in one case and reversed in two, generally holding that an accusatory instrument is facially sufficient even if a translator was used, as long as it does not facially indicate a defect or misinterpretation. The Court found that a translator acts as a language conduit and does not create an additional layer of hearsay for pleading purposes, and that the CPL does not mandate a certificate of translation. Dissenting opinions by Justices Rivera and Wilson argued for clearer rules requiring documentation of translator qualifications and accuracy to ensure the reliability and non-hearsay nature of such instruments, emphasizing the importance of these procedural safeguards, especially given the high rate of plea bargains in misdemeanor cases.

Accusatory Instrument SufficiencyLimited English ProficiencyTranslator RoleHearsay RuleSpeedy Trial MotionFacial SufficiencyMisdemeanor ComplaintsSupporting DepositionsCriminal Procedure LawCPL 30.30
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division v. Bush

The State of Texas appealed an award to Wylma A. Bush for injuries sustained on her employer's premises, Terrell State Hospital. Bush, a food service worker, fainted due to high blood pressure, a non-compensable condition. While being transported on a stretcher by an emergency crew on the hospital grounds, a defective stretcher wheel caused her head and neck to be injured. The State argued the injury was not in the course and scope of employment as the underlying condition was not compensable. The court affirmed the award, applying the 'but for' test and the 'health, comfort and convenience rule,' finding that the use of a defective employer instrumentality during medical assistance incidental to her employment made the injury compensable.

Workers' CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentIdiopathic ConditionEmployer PremisesDefective InstrumentalityCausal ConnectionHealth and Comfort DoctrineFainting at WorkStretcher AccidentPersonal Nature of Acts
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Patino

The defendant, a police officer, moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and defrauding the government. These charges stemmed from allegations that he falsely claimed permanent disability and improperly collected money from Nassau County. The defendant's motion to dismiss was based on claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, defective Grand Jury proceedings (improper instructions and failure to introduce exculpatory evidence), legally insufficient evidence, and a defective indictment. The court, presided over by Jack Mackston, J., denied the motion to dismiss, finding no evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution by the District Attorney, adequate Grand Jury instructions, and legally sufficient evidence. The court also denied dismissal in the interest of justice but partially granted a motion for disclosure of certain statistics.

Criminal Procedure LawGrand JuryIndictmentSelective ProsecutionVindictive ProsecutionFalse InstrumentGrand LarcenyGovernment FraudPolice Misconduct AllegationsDisability Fraud
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03558 [230 AD3d 127]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2024

Dibrino v. Rockefeller Ctr. North, Inc.

Dominick DiBrino, an employee of Jacobson & Company, was injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site owned by Rockefeller Center North Inc., where JRM Construction Mgmt LLC was the general contractor and DAL Electrical Corporation was a subcontractor. DiBrino sued Rockefeller, JRM, and DAL under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and for common-law negligence against DAL. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Rockefeller and JRM, denied DAL's motion to dismiss claims against it, and granted Rockefeller and JRM's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against DAL. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this decision. It affirmed the Labor Law § 240(1) liability against Rockefeller and JRM. However, it granted DAL's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, finding that DAL, as a non-contracting party to the plaintiff, did not owe a duty of care, nor did it "launch a force or instrument of harm" by leaving its ladder on site. Consequently, the court also denied Rockefeller and JRM's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against DAL. The dissenting opinion argued that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether DAL launched a force or instrument of harm by leaving a defective ladder (marked with blue tape) on the job site, which other trades were known to use.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationLadder FallDuty of CareEspinal ExceptionsAppellate Division First Department
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1983

Complaint of Geophysical Service, Inc.

This case involves petitioners Geophysical Service, Inc. (GSI) and Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability following the sinking of their chartered vessel, M/V ARCTIC EXPLORER, in Canadian territorial waters, resulting in 13 deaths. The petitioners also moved to dismiss the consolidated claims based on forum non conveniens. The Court, presided over by District McDonald, first determined that Canadian substantive law, particularly the Canadian Shipping Act, governed the controversy. Applying the factors from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Court granted the petitioners' motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, finding Canada to be the more appropriate forum due to substantial contacts and interests. The dismissal was conditioned on GSI and TI submitting to Canadian jurisdiction, waiving any statute of limitation defense, and agreeing to satisfy any judgment rendered by a Canadian court.

Maritime LawLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensCanadian LawAdmiralty JurisdictionChoice of LawShipping ActWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryVessel Sinking
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between American Machine & Foundry Co. & Fay

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,398 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