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. 01-07-01068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

in Re Jindal Saw Limited, Jindal Enterprises LLC, and Saw Pipes USA

Jindal Saw Limited, Jindal Enterprises LLC, and Saw Pipes USA, Inc. (collectively "Saw Pipes") filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the death of an employee, Carlos Lara, who had signed an arbitration agreement regarding employment disputes. His wife, Yvonne Lara, sued individually, as a representative of his estate, and as next friend for their two children, asserting negligence and gross negligence claims. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ruled that the survival action claims, being derivative of Carlos Lara's rights, were subject to the arbitration agreement due to its binding effect on heirs and legal representatives. However, the court concluded that the wrongful-death claims, being personal to Yvonne Lara and her children as non-signatories, were not bound by the agreement. Consequently, the petition for mandamus was granted for the survival action and denied for the wrongful-death claims.

ArbitrationMandamusWrongful DeathSurvival ActionFederal Arbitration ActNon-signatoryEmployment ArbitrationContractual ArbitrationAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
23
Case No. 370130-401
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2008

In Re Jindal Saw Ltd.

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Jindal Saw Limited, Jindal Enterprises LLC, and Saw Pipes USA, Inc. (collectively 'Saw Pipes') challenging a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after Carlos Lara, an employee of Saw Pipes, died from work-related injuries, and his wife, Yvonne Lara, sued Saw Pipes for negligence and gross negligence on behalf of herself, Carlos's estate (survival action), and their children (wrongful-death claims). Carlos had signed an arbitration agreement as part of an employee benefit plan. The appellate court examined whether the non-signatories (Yvonne and children) were bound by Carlos's agreement. The court determined that the wrongful-death claims, being personal to the beneficiaries, were not subject to arbitration, affirming the trial court's denial for those claims. However, the court concluded that the survival action, being derivative of Carlos's rights and brought by his legal representative, was bound by the arbitration agreement, thus granting the mandamus for the survival claim.

arbitration agreementmandamus reliefwrongful death claimsurvival actionemployment contractnon-signatory partiesderivative claimsFederal Arbitration ActTexas lawcontract enforceability
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the Kroger Co. v. Christopher Milanes

Christopher Milanes, an employee of The Kroger Company (a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance), sustained severe injuries, including the amputation of three fingers, while operating a defective bone-in band saw. Milanes alleged that Kroger breached its duties to provide a safe workplace, proper training, and safe equipment, and failed to adequately maintain the saw despite prior reports of issues like dull blades, wobbling, and an inoperable blade guard. The trial court submitted the case to the jury on a general negligence theory, finding Kroger liable and awarding Milanes over $1 million in damages. On appeal, Kroger contended the case should have been submitted on a premises liability theory and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for causation and lost earning capacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Kroger owed continuous, non-delegable duties as an employer, and there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence and damages.

Employer NegligenceWorkplace InjuryNon-subscriber EmployerIndustrial Equipment SafetyDuty to TrainDuty to Maintain Safe EquipmentProximate CauseLoss of Earning CapacityAppellate AffirmationTexas Law
References
51
Case No. 01-10-00867-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2011

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. v. Mario Elizondo

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. appealed a judgment in favor of its employee, Mario Elizondo, who sustained an injury while working as a meat cutter. The injury occurred when Elizondo, wearing gloves, used a Biro saw to cut beef feet, and his glove became caught in the blade. Amigos, a worker's compensation insurance non-subscriber, challenged the trial court's finding of negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Amigos had a duty to warn Elizondo of the danger of wearing gloves while operating the saw, a danger that Amigos was aware of through the saw's manual but failed to communicate to Elizondo. The court also found that Amigos breached its duty to provide a safe method and proper training, even though a pusher tool was available, as there was evidence that cutting beef feet with the saw, even with the tool, might be unsafe.

NegligenceEmployer DutyWorker's Compensation Non-SubscriberWorkplace InjurySafety WarningEmployee TrainingMeat Cutting SawPersonal Protective EquipmentCausationTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1999

Cruz v. Toscano

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that factual issues regarding defendant Philip Toscano's supervision and control over renovation work, which could justify liability for plaintiff's injuries under Labor Law § 200, did not exist. There was no evidence that Toscano exercised supervision over plaintiff's use of the table saw, nor was the duty to provide a safe workplace breached, as the injuries arose from the employer's tools and methods. Furthermore, there was no evidence that defendants supplied the allegedly defective saw or had notice of its condition. Plaintiff also continued to use the saw despite being aware of its missing guard.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor MethodsSupervisory ControlDefective ToolsNotice of DefectPersonal InjuryNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2012

Kruk v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the defendant. The case involved plaintiff Jose Kruk, who was injured while using a power saw and subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendant successfully argued that the saw was equipped with necessary protective guards as mandated by Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding a defective guard or the necessity of a saw table. Consequently, the court found the defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPower Saw InjuryIndustrial CodeProtective GuardsAppellate DecisionAffirmanceWorker SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2007

Boruch v. Morawiec

A construction worker sustained an injury when his forearm and wrist made contact with a miter saw blade. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) by failing to provide proper saw guards. However, the expert witness for the plaintiff could not definitively confirm the absence of proper guards as the saw itself was unavailable for examination. The jury ultimately found that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proving a violation of the Industrial Code. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, dismissing plaintiff's arguments regarding a comment made by defense counsel during summation (which was cured by instruction) and confusion in the verdict sheet (which was unpreserved and lacked merit).

Construction Worker InjuryMiter Saw AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationExpert Witness TestimonyJury Verdict AffirmedSafety Guard IssueTrial Court LimitationsAppellate ReviewCurative InstructionVerdict Sheet Interrogatories
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses a product liability action filed by Alonso and Elizabeth Lara against Delta International Machinery Corp. following Alonso Lara's hand injury from a Delta table saw. The court granted Delta's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs' expert, Stanley H. Fein, finding his design defect opinions unreliable due to a lack of testing and speculative methodology. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' design defect claim was dismissed for lack of admissible expert testimony. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, acknowledging a genuine dispute regarding whether adequate warnings could have been conveyed to Lara by third parties despite his inability to read English. Additionally, claims for breach of express warranty, manufacturing defect, and loss of services were deemed abandoned, and the breach of implied warranty claim was dismissed as time-barred.

Products LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702Table Saw AccidentIndustrial SafetyMechanical Engineering
References
128
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2012

Keneally v. 400 Fifth Realty

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). This denial was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The case involves an accident where the plaintiff was using a power-driven saw, and issues of fact remain as to whether Industrial Code § 23-1.12 (c) (1) was violated due to a defective movable self-adjusting guard on the saw. The court properly considered the plaintiff's expert's affidavit but declined to consider the defendants' expert's affidavit, which was submitted for the first time in reply and sought to assert new grounds for the motion.

Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 23-1.12(c)(1)Power-driven saw accidentDefective saw guardSummary judgment motionTriable issues of factExpert affidavitAppellate DivisionWorkplace safetyConstruction accident
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,384 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