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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00083 [201 AD3d 1059]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Fleetwood Drywall Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

Fleetwood Drywall Inc. appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found them liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for certain drywall installers and finishers. Fleetwood considered these workers independent contractors, but an audit and subsequent hearings determined an employment relationship existed under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act (Labor Law art 25-B). The Administrative Law Judge and the Board found that Fleetwood failed to rebut the statutory presumption of an employment relationship by not meeting all 12 statutory criteria for separate business entities under Labor Law § 861-c (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, specifically finding that Fleetwood failed to demonstrate that the subcontractors owned the capital goods (drywall) as required by the statute.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawStatutory PresumptionCapital GoodsDrywall InstallersSubcontractorsAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. M2002-00791-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Royal Insurance v. R & R Drywall and Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance

A workers' compensation insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, sought a retrospective premium increase from R & R Drywall, Inc., after an audit suggested the contractor's subcontractors employed more workers than initially declared. R & R Drywall contended these additional workers were partners, not employees, and thus not subject to its workers' compensation policy. While an administrative law judge initially sided with R & R, the Chancery Court reversed, ruling in favor of Royal Insurance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Chancery Court's decision, emphasizing that the insurance company bore the risk of liability for these workers during the policy period, and the contractor's attempts to reclassify them after the fact would undermine the purpose of workers' compensation law. The judgment of the Chancery Court was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective PremiumSubcontractor LiabilityEmployee MisclassificationPartnership StatusAdministrative AppealChancery Court ReversalAppellate AffirmationRisk AssessmentWorkers' Compensation Law Purpose
References
7
Case No. 14-17-01010-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2017

Schear Hampton Drywall, LLC v. Founders Commercial, LTD

Schear Hampton Drywall, LLC (SHD) appeals a final judgment from the 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. SHD originally sued Founders Commercial, Ltd (Founders) to foreclose a statutory mechanic's and materialman's lien for unpaid construction work on The Abbey at Westminster Plaza. The work was performed under a subcontract with Construction Supervisors, Inc. (CSI), the general contractor. The trial court found SHD's lien partially valid for $36,678.32, but also awarded Founders $15,000 in damages on its counterclaim, resulting in a net recovery of $21,678.32 for SHD. Founders also secured a default judgment against CSI. SHD argues on appeal that the trial court erred in calculating the lien amount, improperly awarding damages to Founders, and denying attorneys' fees, seeking a rendered judgment foreclosing the lien for the full claimed value of $152,173.60.

ConstructionMechanic's LienSubcontractor DisputeAppellate BriefTexas Property CodeDamagesAttorney's FeesContract LawEconomic Loss RuleThird-Party Beneficiary
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christa Construction, LLC v. Connelly Drywall, LLC

Christa Construction, LLC sued Connelly Drywall, LLC for breach of contract concerning two construction projects. Christa alleged that Connelly Drywall failed to provide adequate legal and skilled workers, leading to additional costs for Christa. Connelly Drywall's counsel withdrew, and the company subsequently failed to retain new counsel despite court orders, effectively failing to defend itself. Consequently, Christa moved for a default judgment. The court granted the motion for default judgment, awarding Christa damages totaling $393,662.00, plus interest, and attorneys' fees of $25,460.77. Connelly Drywall's counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractCorporate RepresentationFailure to AppearAttorney WithdrawalDamagesAttorneys' FeesSubcontract AgreementConstruction ProjectContract Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Builders v. Durham

Charter Builders, a general contractor, appealed a judgment denying its claims for indemnity or contribution from Commercial Drywall, a third-party defendant. Durham, an employee, had originally sued Charter Builders for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The jury found negligence and gross negligence against Charter Builders, apportioning 55% of the negligence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of contribution, citing Charter Builders' failure to support its claim, its proportionate payment of damages, the basis of exemplary damages on gross negligence, and Commercial Drywall's immunity as a subscribing employer under the Workers' Compensation Act. The court also denied indemnification, ruling that the contractual provisions did not unequivocally indemnify Charter Builders against its own negligence, as required by Texas law, and no exceptions applied to this rule.

Workers' CompensationContributionIndemnity AgreementJoint TortfeasorsEmployer ImmunityGross NegligenceAppellate ProcedureContract InterpretationPremises LiabilityEmployee Definition
References
27
Case No. ADJ10531850
Regular
Aug 14, 2018

JORGE MACIEL IBARRA vs. TIM CAGLE, individually, doing business as TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, GREGORY AND BROOKE BAIRD, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND (UEBTF), ALLIED SACRAMENTO

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jorge Maciel Ibarra's claim for an industrial injury as a drywall installer. The primary issue is whether applicant was a household employee, as the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) argues for exclusion. The Board rescinded the initial findings and remanded the case for the WCJ to first determine the identity of the employer and insurance status. If Tim Cagle Drywall is uninsured, the WCJ must then decide if the applicant, as an employee of an unlicensed contractor, meets the household employee wage and hour thresholds for coverage.

UEBTFPetition for ReconsiderationHousehold EmployeeLabor Code section 3352(h)Ultimate HirerUninsured ContractorLicensed ContractorSection 2750.5(c)Section 3351(d)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07468
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

People v. Ultimate Homes, Inc.

Guy Poulin, a drywall installer, was injured after falling through an unguarded stairwell opening at a residential construction site. He and his wife sued the general contractor, Ultimate Homes, Inc., among others, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order, which had denied Ultimate's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims and its cross-claim for indemnification, was appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, affirming the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on Labor Law § 240(1) against Ultimate. The court granted Ultimate's motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it, finding the accident arose from the method of work and Ultimate lacked supervisory control. Additionally, Ultimate's cross-claim for common-law indemnification against J.G. Fortin Drywall, Inc. was granted, and the lower court's sua sponte dismissal of Ultimate's cross-claims was reversed.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceIndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary judgmentAppellate Division
References
50
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. ADJ2194325
Regular
Sep 25, 2009

FRANCISCO NUNEZ vs. BRANQUINHO DRYWALL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant Branquinho Drywall, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund sought reconsideration of a July 2, 2009 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition due to statutory time constraints and a need for further study of factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and allow for a just decision. All future communications must be directed to the Board's Office of the Commissioners.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardBranquinho DrywallInc.State Compensation Insurance FundADJ2194325SAL 0111007Opinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual Issues
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2001

McDaniel v. Fischione Construction Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of Keith Ramsey Drywall Services, Inc., was injured after falling from stacked drywall walk-ups while installing drywall. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the walk-ups failed to provide proper protection and rejecting the defendant's recalcitrant worker defense. The court also granted Fischione Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for common-law indemnification against Keith Ramsey Drywall Services, Inc., as Fischione only exercised general supervisory authority over the work site. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that Supreme Court properly granted both the plaintiff's cross-motion and Fischione's motion for summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1) ViolationStacked Walk-ups FailureWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityThird-Party IndemnificationSupervisory AuthorityAppellate ReviewConstruction Site InjurySummary Judgment MotionUnsafe Practices
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 79 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