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. 2019 NY Slip Op 04527 [173 AD3d 1327]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Gutkaiss v. Delaware Ave. Merchants Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Timothy Gutkaiss, an independent contractor, was injured when he fell from a ladder while replacing decorative LED light strands on poles along Delaware Avenue. He initiated an action against Delaware Avenue Merchants Group, Inc. and the City of Albany, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and negligence. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and denied the City's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that replacing decorative light strands constituted routine maintenance, not a 'repair' or 'construction' within the statute's protection, and that decorative lights were not 'fixtures'. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the City's cross-motion to dismiss the negligence claim, finding that the City was not entitled to qualified immunity for negligent maintenance and that its argument regarding lack of prior written notice was unpreserved for review.

Labor Law § 240 (1) liabilityroutine maintenance exceptiondecorative lightingindependent contractor injuryladder fallnegligence claimqualified immunity for municipalityunpreserved argumentsummary judgment reversalAppellate Division Third Department
References
11
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 03-97-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

A. James Lynn v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas

A. James Lynn appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed an order by the Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas. The Board found that Lynn did not possess the good moral character required for admission to the Bar of Texas, citing his engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, a public reprimand from the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and violations of HUD regulations. The Travis County District Court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, Lynn raised ten issues, including claims regarding the lack of substantial evidence, rational connection of character traits, constitutionality of the unauthorized practice of law statute, res judicata, right to a jury trial, and due process. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, overruled all of Lynn's issues, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that there was a clear and rational connection between Lynn's character traits and his fitness to practice law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Bar AdmissionMoral CharacterUnauthorized Practice of LawProfessional MisconductCertified Public AccountantHUD RegulationsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessRes Judicata
References
18
Case No. 15-24-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2024

Randall Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

Appellant Randal Law, a catastrophically injured worker receiving lifetime income benefits from the Subsequent Injury Fund, appeals a decision from the 353rd Civil District Court of Travis County, Texas. The District Court granted the defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing Law's claims without prejudice. Law argues that manager Blaise Gerstenlauer acted with "Severe Ultra Vires conduct" by unilaterally interrupting his lifetime income benefits, which are protected by the Texas Labor Code from legal process and are paid until the employee's death. Law contends that this ultra vires act bypasses sovereign immunity, allowing his case to proceed in the Texas Judicial Review System. The brief requests the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to reverse the lower court's order and grant jurisdiction to Law.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsSubsequent Injury FundUltra Vires ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate CourtInjunctive ReliefCatastrophic InjuryTexas Labor Code
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 16,943 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