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

Holmes v. K & M Jewelry, Inc.

Nora Holmes, a retail sales clerk for Gimbels, Inc., sustained personal injuries when a display case owned by K & M Jewelry, Inc., fell. She received workers' compensation benefits from Gimbels and subsequently attempted to sue K & M Jewelry, Inc., for negligence. The core issue in this appeal was the validity of service of the summons and complaint upon K & M Jewelry, Inc. A special referee initially upheld the service, and the Supreme Court confirmed this report. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion, finding that K & M Jewelry, Inc. was not properly served as the recipient, a 'Mrs. Kahn,' was not an authorized agent of the corporate defendant.

Service of ProcessCorporate ServicePersonal InjuryNegligenceWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAgencyAuthorized AgentSummons and ComplaintJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. IBM

Cindy Holmes, an African-American woman, sued her employer IBM under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for racial discrimination, alleging she was repeatedly denied promotions from Band 3 to Band 4 despite her qualifications, while less qualified Caucasian co-workers were promoted. Holmes presented evidence of supervisors making race-related comments and other instances of disparate treatment, which she argued indicate discriminatory animus. IBM moved for summary judgment, contending Holmes could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, nor could she prove their legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting her were pretextual. The court, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found that Holmes had established a prima facie case and presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding pretext, including alleged discriminatory comments by supervisors. Therefore, the District Court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment.

DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasPretextPrima Facie CasePromotion Denial42 U.S.C. 1981District Court
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Gaynor

Raymond Holmes, Jr., a former employee of the Village of Piermont, sued Defendants Thomas Gaynor, Dennis Hardy, and the Village, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Holmes claimed selective prosecution regarding an illegal dumping scheme, termination without a pre-deprivation hearing, and defamation linked to his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court found Holmes failed to present sufficient evidence for his selective prosecution and liberty interest claims, and that his termination, if it occurred, was pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 71, which does not require a pre-termination hearing. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the case was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentCivil RightsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessSelective ProsecutionDefamationLiberty InterestIllegal DumpingWorkers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service Law Section 71
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.

This case concerns consolidated actions against Holmes Protection, Inc., a fire alarm company, for negligent services resulting in extensive property damage at a 42-story skyscraper owned by 810 Associates in midtown Manhattan. The core legal issues revolved around the enforceability of a contractual exculpatory clause, which the Court concluded would not bar recovery for grossly negligent conduct. The Court also addressed complex contribution claims among various defendants and clarified that 810's claims against Holmes could sound in tort, not solely contract, due to the public interest nature of the services. The Appellate Division's denial of summary judgment for Holmes on the issue of gross negligence was affirmed, while contribution claims were selectively reinstated or dismissed based on the level of negligence and the duties owed to the respective parties.

Gross NegligenceExculpatory ClauseLimitation of LiabilityContribution ClaimsTort LawContract LawFire Alarm ServicesPublic PolicySummary JudgmentComparative Negligence
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1987

Claim of Film v. Holmes Transportation

Claimant, a truck driver for Holmes Transportation, suffered a stroke on July 18, 1985, after experiencing symptoms while loading heavy equipment. He had a preexisting hypertension condition, certified in January 1985. His workers' compensation claim was initially dismissed, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the stroke to be an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer appealed this reversal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from claimant's testimony and medical opinions supporting a causal link between his strenuous work and the stroke, despite conflicting medical expert testimony.

Workers' CompensationStrokeHypertensionCausationMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAccidentCourse of EmploymentAppellate ReviewCredibility
References
6
Case No. ADJ4039795
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

Errol Holmes vs. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ESIS/EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant's attorney sought additional fees for opposing Shell Oil's writ of review, which the Court of Appeal granted, remanding for supplemental fees. The Appeals Board initially awarded $3,000 based on estimated hours and a reasonable rate after no response was received to a request for itemized fees. The applicant's attorney then claimed he did not receive the request and sought $5,751.57 in fees. Despite treating his letter as a reconsideration petition, the Appeals Board reviewed the matter again and reaffirmed the $3,000 award, finding it adequate and denying any additional compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardErrol HolmesShell Oil CompanyESISEmployers Self-Insurance ServicesPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 5902
References
0
Case No. ADJ4132514 (SAC 0199422)
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

ERNEST HOLMES vs. THE HUNTINGTON GROUP, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Ernest Holmes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed beyond the statutory 20-day limit plus an additional 5 days for mailing. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Reconsideration dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelyWCABWCJLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013administrative law judgeFinding of FactConclusion of Lawdismissal
References
0
Case No. ADJ2950403 (POM 0263778)
Regular
Feb 25, 2007

LUIS RIOS vs. HOLMES BODY SHOP, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Holmes Body Shop, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund. This grant is to allow further study of the factual and legal issues presented by the case. The WCAB believes additional review is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications must be filed with the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting PetitionStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersService by MailOfficial Address Record
References
0
Case No. ADJ10871012
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

MICHAEL HOLMES vs. BEHAVIOR FRONTIERS, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

Applicant Michael Holmes sought the disqualification of a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging general bias. The Appeals Board, after considering the petition and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, denied the disqualification request. The Board affirmed that expressions of opinion based on evidence and legal interpretation, or erroneous rulings, do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The applicant was also admonished regarding potential vexatious litigant proceedings if such conduct persists.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionEnmityState of MindWCAB Rule 10960AffidavitDeclaration
References
14
Case No. 1:03 CV 00770(NPM)
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2005

Swindell v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRON. CON.

Plaintiffs Kathleen Swindell, Celine D. Olsen, Clare Loiacono, and Shawn Hardwick filed a civil rights action against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individual defendants. The complaint alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state tort claims, stemming from their arrest by Environmental Conservation Officer Eric Roderick at a campground. Earlier, defendants DEC, Ellithorp, Florence, and Holmes were dismissed. The court granted summary judgment to defendant Heinrich on all claims and to defendant Roderick on claims brought by Hardwick and specific claims by Swindell. Ultimately, the court concluded that Roderick was entitled to qualified immunity on the remaining federal claims of false arrest, excessive force, due process, and malicious prosecution. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to Roderick and Heinrich on all federal claims, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Civil RightsQualified ImmunityFalse ArrestExcessive ForceMalicious ProsecutionDue ProcessSummary JudgmentFourth AmendmentEighth AmendmentState Tort Claims
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 38 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