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

Mustang Pipeline Co. v. Driver Pipeline Co.

This case concerns a breach of contract dispute between Mustang Pipeline Co. (Mustang) and Driver Pipeline Co. (Driver) regarding a pipeline construction project. Mustang sued Driver for failing to complete work timely, while Driver counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The jury initially found both parties breached, but the Supreme Court of Texas clarified that an express jury finding on materiality is not required when 'time is of the essence,' determining Driver's breach was material as a matter of law. This discharged Mustang from its obligations, invalidating the wrongful termination claim. However, Mustang failed to provide sufficient evidence that its claimed damages were reasonable and necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for Driver, rendered judgment that Driver take nothing, and reversed the award of attorney's fees to Driver, upholding the denial of damages to Mustang.

Breach of ContractMaterial BreachTime is of the EssenceWrongful TerminationContract DamagesReasonableness of CostsAttorney's FeesJury InstructionsAffirmative DefenseJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
Case No. 06-00-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. v. Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc.

This appeal involves a breach of contract dispute between Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellant) and Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellee) concerning a pipeline construction project. Driver was contracted to build a pipeline but faced delays, leading Mustang to terminate the contract and hire another company. At trial, the jury found Driver breached the contract but also that Mustang was not justified in its termination. The trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Mustang's damage award, citing a lack of evidence for reasonable and necessary costs. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court upheld the JNOV on Mustang's damages and sustained the jury's finding that Mustang's termination was unjustified, while Driver's appeal regarding a statutory mineral lien was not preserved for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictDamagesReasonable and Necessary CostsMaterial BreachTermination of ContractFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
50
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Driver Pipeline Co. v. Mustang Pipeline Co.

This is an appeal stemming from a breach of contract lawsuit between Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. and Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. Mustang initially sued Driver for breach of contract after Driver failed to complete a pipeline project on schedule due to weather delays, leading Mustang to hire another contractor. Driver countersued for wrongful termination. A jury found Driver in breach but also found Mustang unjustified in terminating the contract, awarding damages to both parties. The trial court, however, granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) in favor of Driver and its insurer, Seaboard Surety Company, disallowing Mustang's damages. Both Driver and Mustang appealed. Driver appealed the denial of a statutory mineral lien, while Mustang challenged the j.n.o.v. on damages and the jury's finding of unjustified termination. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the j.n.o.v. because Mustang failed to provide evidence that its completion costs were "reasonable and necessary," and also upheld the jury's finding of unjustified termination as the breach was not determined to be material.

Breach of ContractPipeline ConstructionJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (J.N.O.V.)Contract TerminationMaterial BreachDamages CalculationReasonable and Necessary CostsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTime is of the Essence Clause
References
51
Case No. 2016-06-2328
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2017

Driver, Robert W. v. Triumph Group, Inc.

Mr. Robert W. Driver, a machinist, sustained a right knee injury after falling at work for Triumph Group, Inc. on February 10, 2016. Initial medical evaluations by Premise Health attributed his symptoms to pre-existing arthritis, leading to the denial of his workers' compensation claim. However, an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Robert P. Landsberg, concluded that the work injury aggravated and advanced Mr. Driver's pre-existing degenerative knee condition. The Court found Triumph's employer-provided physician panel invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. Based on the expert medical testimony, the Court deemed Dr. Landsberg's opinion more credible, finding Mr. Driver likely to prevail in establishing entitlement to medical benefits. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Driver's request for a panel of orthopedists.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingKnee InjuryMeniscal TearPre-existing Condition AggravationMedical CausationPhysician Panel ComplianceOrthopedistsExpert Medical Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mihalaris v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

A limousine driver, who leased his vehicle from Augie’s Auto Repair, Inc. (Augie) and was dispatched by UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc. (UTOG), was assaulted and injured during a vehicle theft while working. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the driver a general employee of Augie and a special employee of UTOG, apportioning liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, finding the driver solely an employee of UTOG, discharging Augie based on an interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (4) regarding lessor/owner control. UTOG and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board misapplied the law concerning taxicab drivers, contending the control-related factors only apply when the owner operates the taxicab 40+ hours weekly. The Appellate Court reversed the Board's decision, stating the Board incorrectly applied the statute by requiring control factors for Augie when the 40-hour exception was not met, and remitted the matter for a decision consistent with the controlling statute.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployment RelationshipLimousine DriverTaxicab DriversStatutory InterpretationLessor-Lessee RelationshipGeneral EmploymentSpecial EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemand
References
7
Case No. 2019-04-0154
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2019

Riley, Donald Grady v. Robin Driver

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Donald Grady Riley's claim for workers' compensation benefits against Robin Driver, an uninsured employer, following a July 6, 2018 work-related vehicle accident. The Court found Mr. Riley is likely to prove he was an employee, not an independent contractor, and is thus entitled to a panel from which to select an authorized physician for his work-related injuries, which Mr. Driver failed to provide. However, Mr. Riley's requests for reimbursement of past medical expenses and temporary disability benefits were denied due to insufficient medical evidence establishing a causal connection between his alleged injuries and the accident, and a lack of documentation for wages. The Court ordered Mr. Driver to provide a physician panel.

Employee ClassificationIndependent Contractor TestUninsured EmployerMedical Benefits EntitlementTemporary Disability ClaimWork-Related AccidentCausation StandardPhysician PanelEmergency Room TreatmentLow Back Injuries
References
3
Case No. 2017-03-1235
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Goodwin, Charles R. v. Morristown Drivers Services, Inc.

This case came before the Court on remand from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Court previously denied Morristown Drivers Services's motion for summary judgment, but the Appeals Board reversed and remanded the case. In compliance with the Appeals Board's order, the Court granted Morristown Drivers Services's motion for summary judgment. Consequently, Mr. Goodwin's claim for workers' compensation benefits is dismissed on the merits with prejudice. A filing fee of $150.00 is taxed to Morristown Drivers Services, and they are also required to prepare and submit the SD-2 form.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimsAppeals Board ReversalClaim DismissalFiling FeesRemand OrderCourt of Workers' Compensation ClaimsTennessee LawPrejudice DismissalCompensation Order
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,311 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