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

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gleason v. Holman Contract Warehousing, Inc.

This case addresses the retroactivity of the "Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996." Plaintiff Timothy Gleason, injured while employed by Transport Associates, Inc. (now in bankruptcy), initiated consolidated actions against several defendants, including Holman Contract Warehousing, Inc., Product Distribution Company, General Electric Company, and Customized Transport, Inc. The new Act, effective September 10, 1996, restricts third-party actions against employers unless a "grave injury" is sustained, which was not the case here. The plaintiff sought to sever the third-party action to expedite trial, prompting the court to determine the Act's temporal application. The court concluded the Act is prospective, applying only to accidents after its effective date, and thus denied the severance motion while postponing the trial due to the ongoing bankruptcy stay affecting Transport Associates, Inc.

Statutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Reform ActRetroactivity of LegislationProspective ApplicationGrave InjuryContribution LawThird-Party ActionsEmployer LiabilityCPLR AmendmentsDole v Dow Chemical Co. Doctrine
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03146
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Barrett v. Magnetic Construction Group Corp.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal from an order denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and dismissing a third-party complaint. Anthony Barrett, an employee of MJE, Inc., was allegedly injured while working on a renovation project for Magnetic Construction Group Corp., a general contractor. Magnetic, facing a personal injury suit from Barrett, initiated a third-party action against MJE for contractual indemnification. Both Magnetic and MJE sought summary judgment regarding the existence and applicability of a written indemnification contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that issues of fact remained as to whether a written contract containing an indemnification provision was in effect between Magnetic and MJE on the date of the accident.

Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawSubcontract agreementRetroactive contractDemolition workPersonal injuryAppellate reviewQuestion of fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lusardi v. Lusardi

This appeal concerns the applicability of amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (4) and § 54 (6) to policies issued before the amendments' effective date. These amendments excluded workers’ compensation coverage for sole shareholder and executive officer employees unless affirmatively elected. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found the amendments applicable since the accident occurred after the effective date, but later reconsidered, concluding they do not apply to pre-existing policies. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying prospective application to the amendments, as they restricted existing rights and would not alter current insurance contracts. The decision to affirm the award to the claimant was deemed rational.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationLegislative AmendmentsInsurance PolicyCorporate EmployerSole ShareholderExecutive OfficerCoverage ElectionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seymour v. Victor Balata Belting Co.

This court opinion addresses the application of a 1996 New York State Legislature amendment that significantly altered contribution and indemnification claims under the Dole v Dow Chem. Co. rule. The central issue is whether the statutory changes apply prospectively to actions commenced after the effective date or only to accidents occurring after that date. Reviewing various Appellate Division and Supreme Court precedents, the court determines that the legislative changes are effective only for accidents that took place on or after September 10, 1996. This decision emphasizes the principle that parties rely on existing law when negotiating contracts and allocating risks, particularly concerning insurance coverage and indemnification. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is denied.

Statutory InterpretationRetroactivityProspectivityContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsDole v Dow Chem. Co. RuleWorkers' Compensation Reform Act of 1996Third-Party ActionsAccident DateAction Commencement Date
References
8
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 6,877 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