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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. ADJ9890148
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

Timothy Bedford vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case denies reconsideration of a permanent disability rating. The Board affirmed the use of Figure 15-19 of the AMA Guides, finding it permissible to use any chapter or method within the Guides that most accurately reflects impairment. The Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion was deemed substantial, as he explained how Figure 15-19 was used to derive a more accurate rating based on the applicant's specific spinal condition. The decision also distinguished the current case from prior panel decisions regarding the application of the AMA Guides and work limitations.

AMA Guidespermanent disability ratingrebuttable presumptionwhole person impairmentAlmaraz/Guzman IIclinical judgmentagreed medical evaluator (AME)Figure 15-19functional losssurgical-grade disc herniations
References
7
Case No. 10-07-00369-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Trey Davis and Money of the United States in the Amount of $15,273.25 v. State

Trey Davis appealed the trial court's decision to overrule his motion for a new trial following a default judgment of forfeiture. The State of Texas had sought forfeiture of $15,273.25 in cash, found in Davis's bedroom, under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging it was contraband. Davis failed to file an answer, resulting in the default judgment against him. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, applying the three Craddock elements. The court found that Davis satisfied all elements, demonstrating his failure to answer was not intentional, he presented a meritorious defense by asserting the money came from insurance claims, and granting a new trial would not prejudice the State. Consequently, the appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion and reversed the judgment, remanding the case.

Default JudgmentForfeitureMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsAppellate ReviewTexas Criminal ProcedureContrabandMeritorious DefenseCash Forfeiture
References
13
Case No. 15-25-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2024

In Re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. the State of Texas

The case involves Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC (Relator) challenging the First Business Court Division's decision to remand its lawsuit, originally filed in 2019, back to the Dallas County District Court. Synergy had removed the case to the Business Court, which was created by H.B. 19, a law that specifies its 'changes in law apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.' The Business Court ruled that Synergy's 2019 case was not eligible for removal under this temporal limitation. Synergy has filed both a direct appeal and a mandamus petition, arguing that H.B. 19 should permit removal regardless of the case's age. The opposing parties, Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC, contend that the Business Court's interpretation of H.B. 19's plain text is correct and that Synergy has an adequate remedy through a standard appeal after a final judgment.

Texas Business CourtMandamusStatutory InterpretationRemovalRemandH.B. 19Judicial DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory OrderForum Selection
References
38
Case No. 15-24-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2024

ETC Field Services, LLC FKA. Regency Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Company

This case involves an appeal by ETC Field Services, LLC, challenging a remand order issued by the Business Court of Texas, Eighth Division. The original dispute, a breach of contract and negligence claim filed in 2017 by Tema Oil and Gas Co., was removed by ETC to the newly established Business Court in September 2024. Tema subsequently sought remand, arguing that the legislative act creating the Business Courts (H.B. 19) only applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The Business Court agreed, ordering the case remanded to the 236th District Court of Tarrant County. ETC contends that H.B. 19 is a procedural statute and that its provisions for removal should apply retroactively to existing cases, asserting that the Business Court erred in its statutory interpretation and determination of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Business Court denied Tema's request for sanctions against ETC.

JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBusiness LawRemand OrderTexas CourtsCivil ProcedureRetroactivityContract DisputeOil and Gas Industry
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between District 15, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers & Numberall Stamp & Tool Co.

This case concerns a petition filed by District 15, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, to confirm an arbitration award against Numberall Stamp and Tool Company, Inc. (Numberall-NY) and its alleged alter ego, Numberall-Maine. Numberall-NY, a New York corporation, moved its production facilities to Maine, resulting in a dispute over unpaid severance and vacation pay. An arbitrator found in favor of District 15, but Numberall-NY failed to comply. Numberall-Maine subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting it was a separate entity not bound by the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied Numberall-Maine's motion, ruling that the relationship between the two corporations is a proper issue for the court, consistent with national labor policy concerning successor employers and arbitration duties.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionAlter Ego TheoryCorporate Veil PiercingSuccessor Employer LiabilityDiscovery OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeverance Pay
References
9
Case No. 2016-01-0218
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2016

Sanchez, Yonics v. Oz Construction Co.

Yonics Alexis Enriquez Sanchez, an undocumented worker, sought temporary total disability benefits for a left-knee injury sustained in November 2014 while working for Oz Construction Co. The Expedited Hearing, presided over by Judge Thomas Wyatt in Chattanooga, focused on his entitlement to benefits for the period between April 1, 2015, and December 15, 2015, following surgery by Dr. Benjamin S. Miller. The court awarded Mr. Sanchez temporary total disability benefits for the period from April 1, 2015, until May 19, 2015, based on medical records and testimony. However, his claim for the subsequent period until December 15, 2015, was denied due to discrepancies in work status information, resulting in a net award of $1,835.23.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityExpedited HearingKnee InjuryUndocumented WorkerMedical RecordsCredibility AssessmentCausal ConnectionDisability DurationOrthopedic Surgery
References
4
Case No. WCB No. G0699039
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2011

HARRIS, JEFFREY T. v. SCHMIDT, ASHLEY E.

Leo P. DiLuzio sustained work-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee on July 19, 2005. He was classified with a permanent partial disability and received an additional 25 weeks of Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) for his left knee, making it a 50% SLU. The self-insured employer argued that the 525-week cap on indemnity benefits for concurrent SLU and PPD awards under Workers' Compensation Law § 15(3)(w) should apply, despite the pre-July 26, 2010 accident date. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ruled that the claimant was entitled to both SLU and PPD awards without the 525-week cap. The Board Panel affirmed the WCLJ's decision, referencing Matter of Sanchez and clarifying that the 525-week cap in § 15(3)(w) is applicable only to accidents occurring on or after July 26, 2010.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseIndemnity BenefitsConcurrent AwardsStatutory InterpretationAccident DateLegislative AmendmentSection 15(3)(w)Section 15(3)(v)
References
1
Case No. 15-36090
Regular Panel Decision

In re Covelli

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' motion to reopen their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposed sanctions on creditor William Clement for violating the discharge injunction. Clement had pursued a deficiency judgment in state court on a discharged mortgage debt, despite previous court orders. The Court found Clement in contempt and ordered him to withdraw the state court proceeding, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance. The Court denied Clement's separate motion to declare an earlier Chapter 13 petition date as the effective date for the Chapter 7 discharge, reaffirming the June 15, 2015 Chapter 7 petition date.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionSanctionsMotion to ReopenPetition DateDeficiency JudgmentContemptChapter 7Chapter 13Automatic Stay
References
82
Case No. PD-1358-15, PD-1359-15, PD-1360-15, PD-1361-15
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Baumgart, Eric L.

The State of Texas filed a reply brief in the Court of Criminal Appeals, addressing whether the court of appeals erred in applying Penal Code § 2.02. The underlying case involves Eric L. Baumgart, convicted of violating the Private Security Act by acting as a security guard without a license. The State argues the court of appeals correctly held that exceptions not in the same statute as the offense, and where a prima facie case can be made without negating the exception, need not be pleaded or disproven by the State. It asserts this aligns with established common law and statutory interpretation, and that requiring the State to negate over 40 exceptions would lead to absurd results. The State respectfully requests the court of appeals' judgment be affirmed.

Criminal LawStatutory InterpretationExceptionsPrivate Security ActTexas Occupations CodeTexas Penal CodeLicensing RequirementsPeace OfficerPleading RequirementsBurden of Proof
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,221 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