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

Jones v. 414 Equities LLC

A demolition worker, Jones, fell 10-12 feet when a permanent floor collapsed during renovation. He sued the owner, 414 Equities LLC, and general contractor, Artimus Construction, Inc., under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, arguing an elevation-related risk and lack of safety devices, and the floor's decay. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that a permanent floor collapse only posed an elevation-related risk if foreseeable, and plaintiff's evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court also denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the general contractor and granted the contractor's cross-motion for leave to serve a late answer. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, concluding that foreseeability is required for Labor Law § 240(1) liability in permanent floor collapse cases, and finding the general contractor's brief delay in answering excusable.

Demolition workLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related riskPermanent floor collapseSummary judgmentForeseeabilityAppellate reviewWorker safetyConstruction site accidentGeneral contractor liability
References
57
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

in Re Gerald W. Haddock

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2000

Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc.

Juanita Cruceta, an employee of Waldbaum, Inc., was injured after tripping at work and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. Along with her husband, Qulvio Cruceta, she initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Funnel Equities, Inc., the building owner and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waldbaum. Funnel moved for summary judgment, asserting the workers' compensation exclusivity provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), arguing it was an 'alter ego' of Waldbaum. The Supreme Court denied Funnel's motion. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unresolved factual issues regarding Funnel's 'alter ego' status with Waldbaum and its parent company, A&P, and whether Funnel possessed exclusive knowledge of these pertinent facts.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityFactual IssuesAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityBuilding Owner
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reeves v. Continental Equities Corp. of America

Alfred P. Reeves sued Continental Equities Corporation of America and Continental Corporation alleging wrongful discharge under federal securities laws and implied contract, severance benefits under New York law and ERISA, and unreimbursed business expenses. After initial federal claims were dismissed and some remanded by the Second Circuit, Reeves filed an Amended Complaint, adding defamation and demands for a jury trial and punitive damages. Continental moved to dismiss certain state law claims and strike the jury demand and punitive damages requests. The court dismissed the federal securities law claim (again) and the defamation claim for lack of specificity and potential untimeliness. It allowed the ERISA severance benefits claim and the remaining state law claims (wrongful discharge, unreimbursed business expenses) to proceed under pendent jurisdiction. The jury trial demand for ERISA benefits was allowed to stand for further discovery, and punitive damages for ERISA were deferred, but punitive damages for the breach of contract claim were stricken under New York law.

wrongful dischargeERISAseverance benefitsimplied contractdefamationpunitive damagesjury trialfederal securities lawspendent jurisdictionsummary judgment
References
27
Case No. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06570 [121 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2014

Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC v. Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corp.

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

Southern S. S. Co. v. Sheppeard

The Southern Steamship Company initiated an equity action under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to enjoin an award made by a commissioner in favor of Cisro Cummings. Cummings had sustained a thumb injury, leading to amputation, and subsequently signed a release for $260 and re-employment with the company. The commissioner, after a hearing, found that Cummings was statutorily entitled to more compensation than he received and issued an award for the balance. The court, presided over by Judge Hutcheson, determined that the settlement agreement was not properly before it in this injunctive proceeding and upheld the commissioner's award, citing the invalidity of any agreement by an employee to waive compensation rights under the Act. Consequently, the court denied the injunction.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActEquity ActionInjunctionSettlement AgreementWaiver of Compensation RightsRelease ValidityAmputation InjuryWorker's Compensation AwardJudicial ReviewFederal Statute Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 05-23-01126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2024

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC and Culberson Midstream LLC v. Energy Transfer LP

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC, and Culberson Midstream LLC (collectively Culberson) sought permission to appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment on Energy Transfer LP's fraud claims, which stemmed from a dispute over a gas gathering contract. The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas denied the petition. The court found that Culberson failed to establish that the interlocutory order involved a controlling question of law with a substantial ground for difference of opinion, a requirement for permissive appeals. The court concluded that existing case law adequately addresses issues like disclaimers of reliance, justifiable reliance, and red flags in fraud claims, thus providing sufficient guidance without requiring a permissive appeal.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsGas Gathering ContractJustifiable RelianceDisclaimer of RelianceControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,319 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