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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01726 [192 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2021

Palermo v. 7 W. 21 LLC

The plaintiff, Frank Palermo, was injured while assisting a coworker in carrying a large wood form on a construction site. While the plaintiff rested his end of the form on vertical piping, his coworker unexpectedly lifted his side, causing the form to fall and strike the plaintiff's left foot. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, citing factual issues regarding whether the activity involved an elevation-related risk requiring the wood form to be secured under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, a factual question remained as to whether an appropriate safety device could have prevented the accident.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation-Related RiskSafety DeviceFalling ObjectCoworker ActionLiability DisputeAppellate ReviewFactual Issues
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Combs

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued its software transfers to out-of-state franchisees qualified for a sale-for-resale exemption and that software for out-of-state company stores was not subject to Texas use tax. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the State and remanded the case, highlighting the applicability of the sale-for-resale exemption to the franchise software and the materiality of the 'use' definition for out-of-state company stores, requiring further factual development.

Sales TaxSoftware LicensingTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesTangible Personal PropertyUse TaxOut-of-State SalesFranchise StoresCompany Stores
References
34
Case No. 03-08-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and Attorney General of Texas, seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software for its retail stores. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued it was entitled to recover taxes on software transferred to out-of-state third-party franchisees and out-of-state 7-Eleven-operated stores, claiming exemption via sale-for-resale or non-use in Texas. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the sale-for-resale exemption for franchise store software and found neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the out-of-state company stores due to unresolved 'use' issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including new issues raised by the State on rehearing concerning software license allocation and potential 'divergent use.'

Sales TaxUse TaxTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesSoftware LicensingSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
34
Case No. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2017-05-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2017

Glasgow, Jack v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc.

Jack Glasgow, an employee, sustained multiple injuries after falling while installing insulation for 31-W Insulation Co., Inc. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, asserting willful misconduct and willful failure to use safety devices as affirmative defenses, citing Glasgow's prior similar injury and alleged disregard of safety protocols. The trial court initially awarded benefits, finding the employer failed to prove bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, as Glasgow was not disciplined for the previous incident and was subsequently rehired. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer did not demonstrate consistent, bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, which is a required element to establish its affirmative defenses. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryWillful MisconductSafety DeviceAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementEmployee SafetyEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawAppeals Board
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. 02-11-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2012

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, Chapter 7 Trustee v. First United Bank & Trust Company

Jim Chambers, Mary Ann Chambers, and Mark Weisbart, a Chapter 7 Trustee, appealed the trial court’s judgment concerning home equity loans from First United Bank & Trust Company. The appellants challenged the trial court’s directed verdict on their breach of fiduciary duty claim and the Bank’s foreclosure order, and further argued against the jury’s findings on damages and the 2004 loan payoff amount, as well as the award of attorney’s fees to the Bank. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no informal fiduciary duty existed, the Bank properly secured an order of foreclosure, and the jury’s determinations on damages and loan payoff were supported by sufficient evidence. The court also found the award of attorney's fees to the Bank to be equitable and just under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Home Equity LoanForeclosureBreach of Fiduciary DutyDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDamagesAttorney's FeesUniform Declaratory Judgments Act
References
47
Case No. 03-11-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Lawrence Black v. Franklin Service Stations, Inc., D/B/A J & J Towing And 7-Eleven Convenience Stores

This case involves Lawrence Black's appeal after his truck was towed from a 7-Eleven parking lot. Black's fiancé, Althea Zuniga, the registered owner, initially won an unlawful towing claim in justice court, but the county court at law ruled in favor of the appellees. Black attempted to intervene and appeal nearly two months after the county court's final judgment, which had also denied Zuniga's motion for new trial. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed Black's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Black's post-judgment attempt to intervene was barred as a matter of law, and he did not qualify under the 'virtual representation' doctrine, thus lacking standing to bring the appeal.

StandingInterventionFinal JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionVirtual RepresentationMotion to DismissTowing DisputeTrial Court JudgmentPost-judgment MotionsTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,008 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