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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves an appeal concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rafael Casados, a temporary employee leased by Staff Force to Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C., died in a work-related accident. His parents, Rogelio and Rafaela Casados, sued Port Elevator for wrongful death. Port Elevator sought summary judgment, arguing Casados was its employee and covered by its workers' compensation policy, thus barring the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Port Elevator's summary judgment and the granting of Casados's partial summary judgment. The court found that Port Elevator failed to conclusively prove its policy covered temporary employees like Casados, thus rendering the exclusive remedy defense inapplicable.

Exclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed ServantSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActPolicy InterpretationWrongful Death
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Mrs. Aurelia DeLeon brought a suit for damages against Otis Elevator Company and Nix Professional Building Corporation after sustaining personal injuries in a malfunctioning elevator in the Nix Building. Texas Employers Insurance Association intervened to recover workers' compensation benefits paid to Mrs. DeLeon. The jury found no negligence or defective design by Otis and no failure to use a high degree of care by Nix. The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict. Mrs. DeLeon appealed, raising points of error concerning jury instructions on non-delegable duty, unavoidable accident, circumstantial evidence, and the exclusion of evidence, as well as the factual insufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryNegligenceDefective designRes ipsa loquiturJury instructionsAppellate reviewWorkers' compensation subrogationStandard of carePremises liability
References
18
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06678 [143 AD3d 759]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2016

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Manuel Fajardo sued Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp., Bronx Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare, LLC, and Underbruckner Realty Co., LLC for personal injuries sustained in an elevator accident. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for all defendants and partially granted Mainco's cross-motion for spoliation of evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Mainco. However, it reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Bronx Center, determining it was Fajardo's special employer and thus immune under Workers' Compensation Law. The court also reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Underbruckner, finding it was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain the premises.

personal injuryelevator accidentspoliation of evidencesummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationbreach of contractworkers' compensationspecial employer doctrineout-of-possession landlordstatutory duty
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff Paul Lindstedt initiated a personal injury action after being injured in an elevator accident on January 29, 1991, at a building undergoing renovation. Lindstedt, an employee of third-party defendant Otis Elevator Company, was repairing an existing elevator when it malfunctioned, dropping ten floors to the the elevator pit. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240, claiming defendants failed to provide safe hoists, while defendants and the third-party defendant cross-moved to dismiss these claims. The court denied plaintiffs' motion, ruling that Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) were inapplicable as the accident was not a gravity-related fall and the plaintiff was engaged in repair, not construction. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the Labor Law claims, but held the common-law negligence claims in abeyance pending further discovery.

Elevator AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceGravity-Related AccidentConstruction Site SafetyRepair WorkBuilding Renovation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Georgiana Proctor sustained injuries after tripping over a partially opened freight elevator door at her workplace, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability against Rensselaer as the property owner, Otis Elevator Company as the installer, and Schindler Elevator Corporation and Millar Elevator Service Company (collectively Millar) as the maintenance contractor. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Rensselaer and Otis but denied Millar's motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that Rensselaer had no actual or constructive notice of the elevator's dangerous condition and Otis was not liable due to lack of control over four decades. The court further determined that Millar failed to meet its burden for summary judgment, as factual issues remained regarding potential causes like 'rebounding' or 'drift' of the elevator doors.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityElevator AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProduct LiabilityBreach of WarrantyDangerous ConditionProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06570 [121 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves a dispute between Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC (plaintiff) and Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corporation (defendant) concerning a 10-year elevator maintenance contract. The defendant ceased services, alleging unsafe premises. The plaintiff subsequently sued for breach of contract and fraud. The Supreme Court partially dismissed the plaintiff's claims, specifically regarding consequential damages for breach of contract and the entire fraud cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the breach of contract claim was adequately pleaded, the limitation on liability for consequential damages was enforceable, and the fraud claim was properly dismissed as it was not collateral to the contract.

Breach of ContractFraudElevator Maintenance AgreementConsequential DamagesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Condition PrecedentLimitation on LiabilityAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2002

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

A former employee and his wife sued Start Elevator after the employee was injured in an elevator accident. Start Elevator then filed third-party complaints against 410-57th Corp., the building owner and employer, and Carmela Maresca, the managing agent. The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers' compensation settlement barred the third-party actions and that Maresca was a coemployee. Start Elevator cross-moved to amend its complaint for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment and granted leave to amend. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants, dismissing the third-party complaints, and denying Start Elevator's cross-motion for leave to amend, finding no grave injury and insufficient basis for contractual indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ActionsContractual IndemnificationElevator AccidentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCoemployee ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionLeave to Amend PleadingsRes Judicata / Estoppel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a workers' compensation and wrongful death case. Keith Joseph Broussard was fatally injured in an elevator accident while working for Champion Papers. His surviving spouse and son sued the elevator owners/operators (Champion group), the servicing company (General Elevator), and the manufacturer (Otis Elevator Company). General Elevator settled with the plaintiffs for $500,000 and then filed a cross-action against the Champion group for contribution or indemnity. The Champion group successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the exclusive remedies section of the Workers' Compensation statute (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306 §§ 3 and 3a) insulated them from liability. General Elevator appealed, contending that contribution is not barred by the Workers' Compensation statute and that if it is, the statute is unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no conflict with the Texas Comparative Negligence Act and upholding the constitutionality of Article 8306 Section 3.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathContributionIndemnitySummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyComparative NegligenceStatutory InterpretationTexas ConstitutionImplied Repeal
References
7
Case No. 13-08-00150-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Port Elevator–Brownsville, L.L.C. (Appellant) appealed the denial of its summary judgment motion and the granting of a partial summary judgment to Rogelio and Rafaela Casados (Appellees). The case involved the death of Rafael Casados, a temporary worker hired by Staff Force and assigned to Port Elevator, who died in a grain storage facility. Port Elevator argued that appellees' claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Casados was its employee and it subscribed to workers' compensation insurance. Appellees contended that Casados was not covered under Port Elevator's policy, as it did not include temporary employees. The court, citing Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., ruled that Port Elevator failed to prove explicit workers' compensation coverage for Casados, a prerequisite for the exclusive remedy provision. Therefore, the trial court's denial of Port Elevator’s motion and granting of appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawBorrowed ServantInsurance CoverageTexas LawWrongful Death
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 4,159 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