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. ADJ7182186
Regular

EULISES MENDEZ vs. ALBERTSON'S, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eulises Mendez's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the principle that reconsideration can only be granted for final orders, not interlocutory procedural rulings. The WCAB clarified that pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, or trial scheduling are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The applicant was admonished for filing an improper petition and warned of potential sanctions for future similar conduct.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityNotice of IntentionWCABALJLabor Code 5900
References
5
Case No. EP-10-CA-127-FM
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2010

Mendez v. NEW BELL GENERAL SERVICES, LP

The case of Mayra Mendez v. New Bell General Services, L.P. concerns a dispute over an arbitration agreement. Plaintiff Mayra Mendez filed negligence and ERISA claims following an on-the-job injury. Defendants sought to compel arbitration under an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan, while Mendez argued the agreement was illusory and waived. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, ruled that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable due to consideration from provided benefits. It found Mendez's state law claims fell within the agreement's scope and that defendants had not waived their right to arbitrate. Consequently, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration, stayed the case, and denied Mendez's motion for sanctions.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActAt-will EmploymentContract ValidityIllusory PromiseConsiderationTexas LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationMotion for SanctionsRule 11
References
14
Case No. 08-19-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2019

El Paso Tool & Die Co., Inc. v. Carlos Mendez

El Paso Tool and Die Company, Inc. (Appellant) sought a permissive appeal after its motion for summary judgment was denied. Carlos Mendez (Appellee), a temporary laborer from Elwood Staffing, sued El Paso Tool for negligence after losing fingers in an industrial accident. El Paso Tool asserted an exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Labor Code, claiming Mendez was their employee. The trial court denied the motion, finding Mendez was an independent contractor. The appellate court dismissed the permissive appeal, concluding it was improvidently granted due to the trial court's unclear application of legal standards and the presence of disputed facts regarding the control over Mendez's work details.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseSummary Judgment DenialPermissive AppealTemporary Staffing AgencyBorrowed Servant DoctrineIndependent ContractorRight of ControlIndustrial AccidentNegligence Claims
References
22
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01455
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2020

Mendez v. Bank of Am., N.A.

Juan Mendez, an employee of Liberty Contracting Corp., was allegedly injured while performing demolition work for Americon Construction, Inc. Americon sought summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim against Liberty, which the Supreme Court granted. Liberty cross-moved to dismiss the claim, which was denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying Americon's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim and otherwise affirming the order. The court found issues of fact regarding the existence and retroactivity of an indemnification agreement between Americon and Liberty, despite Liberty procuring insurance consistent with subsequently executed terms and conditions.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPurchase Order DisputesRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party PracticeAppellate DivisionIssues of FactDemolition AccidentsInsurance Coverage
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04932
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Mendez v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.

Guido Mendez, a foreman, was injured by a falling light fixture during asbestos removal and sued the general contractor, Vardaris Tech, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding the defendant lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order, denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the defendant failed to demonstrate the inapplicability or non-violation of relevant Industrial Code provisions or that such violations were not a proximate cause of the accident.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAsbestos RemovalIndustrial Code ViolationsFalling Object InjuryGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Case No. 01-06-00701-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Motiva Enterprises, LLC v. Audeen McCrabb, Norma Ann Euton, Connie Mendez, Tom Mendez, Kirk McCrabb, Kathy McCrabb, Scott McCrabb, Sarah McCrabb, Joseph McCrabb and Rebecca McCrabb

In this appeal from the First District of Texas, Motiva Enterprises, LLC challenged a trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of the McCrabbs in a condemnation proceeding. Motiva contended it had a right to recover for its "lost leasehold" interest after a portion of the leased property was condemned, leading to the lease's termination. The Court of Appeals reviewed the interpretation of a long-term ground lease, specifically Article 14, which stipulated the lease's termination upon condemnation and the tenant's entitlement to "special damages." The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that because the lease explicitly terminated upon condemnation, Motiva, as a matter of law, was not entitled to compensation for its lost leasehold advantage.

CondemnationLeasehold InterestSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationSpecial DamagesProperty LawEminent DomainTexas LawAppellate ReviewLease Termination
References
16
Case No. 533982
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry G. Lopez Mendez

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the effective cancellation of an employer's insurance policy. Claimant, Henry G. Lopez Mendez, was injured while working for TGA Construction, LLC. The core issue was whether Merchants Mutual Insurance Company had properly canceled the employer's policy due to non-payment before the accident, thereby making the employer uninsured. The Board, after full review, found the carrier failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements for cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier's proof of mailing was insufficient to establish a nexus with the cancellation notice.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNon-paymentStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPolicy LapseEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05569 [209 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Mendez v. TGA Constr., LLC

Henry G. Lopez Mendez was severely injured in a fall while working for TGA Construction, LLC. The central dispute involved whether Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, the employer's workers' compensation carrier, had effectively canceled its policy due to non-payment before the accident, as per Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). Initially, a WCLJ ruled the policy was canceled, making the employer uninsured. However, upon full Board review, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the carrier failed to meet the strict statutory requirements for policy cancellation and thus was liable. The carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier did not establish proper compliance with the cancellation notice requirements, specifically regarding certified mail, return receipt requested, and connecting the notice to the proof of mailing.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumsEmployer LiabilityStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewBoard Panel ReviewUninsured Employer's FundCertified MailReturn Receipt
References
14
Case No. 2018-02-0214
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Mendez, Jose v. Eskola Roofing

Jose Mendez requested an expedited hearing seeking additional medical and temporary disability benefits for physical and mental injuries sustained from a fall at work on April 2, 2018. Eskola Roofing contended that it had met its obligation in providing medical benefits and that Mr. Mendez was not entitled to further temporary benefits due to a presumption of maximum medical improvement. The Court, holding an expedited hearing on February 4, 2022, denied Mr. Mendez’s requests for temporary total disability benefits and additional neuropsychological testing. However, the Court allowed Mr. Mendez to return to the authorized treating physician, Dr. Smith, for treatment and recommendations under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-204, noting that valid neuropsychological testing had not been completed and reviewed by Dr. Smith. A status conference for the case is scheduled for April 6, 2022.

expedited hearingmedical benefitstemporary disabilitymaximum medical improvementneuropsychological evaluationpsychiatric injury claimtreating physician recommendationsemployer examinationlanguage barrier challengesappellate process
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 49 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