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

Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Functional Restoration Associates

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed a decision holding Continental liable for medical treatment costs provided by Functional Restoration Associates (FRA) and Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE) to an injured employee. The trial court dismissed Continental's suit, citing a lack of statutory basis for judicial review of the Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental argued for both statutory and inherent rights to judicial review. The appellate court found no explicit or implied statutory right but concluded that Continental had an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision affected Continental’s vested property interest (money). The court also rejected the Commission's argument regarding untimely filing. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judicial ReviewMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawDue ProcessProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationRemandTexas LawAppellate Court
References
30
Case No. 03-97-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Continental Casualty Insurance Company v. Functional Restoration Associates Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Functional Restoration Associates (FRA), Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE), and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission). Continental sought judicial review of a Commission decision holding it liable for medical costs for an injured employee, James Hood. The trial court had dismissed the suit, citing a lack of statutory jurisdiction for judicial review of Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental asserted both statutory and inherent bases for jurisdiction. The appellate court found no explicit or necessarily implied statutory right to judicial review of DMR decisions. However, it concluded that Continental possessed an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision directly affected Continental's vested property interest in the money it was ordered to pay. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment of dismissal and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including a review of whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessVested Property RightsMedical Benefits DisputeAppellate JurisdictionTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
28
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06315 [233 AD3d 555]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Rodriguez v. Manhattan Restoration LLC

This case concerns an appeal where the plaintiff, Francisco Rodriguez, alleged negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against Manhattan Restoration LLC, a general contractor. Rodriguez was attacked by an employee of TMF Construction LLC, a subcontractor hired by Manhattan Restoration. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Manhattan Restoration. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding no vicarious liability as the assailant worked for the subcontractor, not Manhattan Restoration. The court also determined that Manhattan Restoration did not own the property, exercised only general supervisory authority, and lacked knowledge of the assailant's violent propensities. Furthermore, the argument regarding the absence of a safety manager was deemed speculative.

negligent hiringnegligent supervisionnegligent retentionvicarious liabilityrespondeat superiorconstruction projectsubcontractorgeneral contractorsummary judgmentduty to keep premises safe
References
5
Case No. 05 Civ. 0200 (CM)
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2008

Virga v. BIG APPLE CONST. & RESTORATION INC.

The plaintiffs, including John Virga and various Mason Tenders District Council Funds, sued defendants Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for unpaid fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The defendants failed to respond to discovery and a notice to admit, leading to a default judgment. The court initially granted summary judgment, awarding damages but denying imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision regarding audit costs, finding that a 'catch-all' provision in the CBA allowed for their recovery. The motion for reconsideration was granted, and imputed audit costs were awarded in addition to the previously granted damages.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementFringe BenefitsDues CheckoffsPAC ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilityAudit Costs
References
22
Case No. 2014-05-0003
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2014

Jewell, Kevin v. Cobble Construction and Arcus Restoration

Kevin Jewell, an employee, filed for an expedited hearing seeking temporary disability and medical benefits after injuring his back while working for Cobble Construction, a subcontractor of Arcus Restoration. Cobble Construction denied the claim, asserting Jewell was an independent contractor and his injury was outside the scope of employment. The court found Jewell to be an employee and that his injury occurred within the scope of his work. Consequently, the court granted Jewell's request, ordering Arcus Restoration, as the principal contractor, to provide medical treatment and pay temporary total disability benefits.

Employee Status DeterminationIndependent Contractor vs. EmployeeScope of EmploymentBack Injury ClaimTemporary Total DisabilityMedical Benefits AwardSubcontractor LiabilityTennessee Workers' Compensation LawExpedited Hearing ProcedureLumbar Radiculopathy Diagnosis
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 06-24-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Jennifer Cambas and Lawrence Cambas v. Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC

Jennifer and Lawrence Cambas (Appellants) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC (Appellee) from the 57th District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Cambases had hired Trinity for water damage repairs and later requested voluntary upgrades and a roof repair. Disputes arose regarding the completion timeframe and quality of work, leading to the Cambases stopping payments and Trinity suing for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The Cambases counterclaimed for various contract and fraud-related issues. The jury found that the Cambases materially breached the written contract first, Trinity substantially performed, and awarded Trinity damages for breach of contract and quantum meruit for the oral agreement. On appeal, the Cambases challenged the sufficiency of evidence for breach, Trinity's right to recovery, quantum meruit recovery, and attorney fees. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, Trinity's right to recovery was not barred, quantum meruit recovery was not barred, and Trinity was entitled to attorney fees.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubstantial PerformanceMaterial BreachAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewTexas LawConstruction ContractHome Renovation
References
35
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Hernandez v. KNS Bldg. Restoration, Inc.

Claimant Guadalupe Hernandez sought workers' compensation benefits for knee and shoulder injuries sustained on his first day of work for KNS Building Restoration, Inc., who, along with insurer Zurich American Insurance Company, denied an employment relationship and coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the claimant's testimony, establishing the claim and finding KNS to be the responsible employer covered by a Zurich wrap-up policy, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of an employer-employee relationship and the Board's credibility determinations. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on administrative review. The decision therefore upholds the finding that Hernandez was an employee of KNS and was injured at its construction site.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationInsurance CoverageConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewNew EvidenceWrap-up PolicyEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 142 SSM 33
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Lidia Burgos v. Citywide Central Insurance Program

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. The decision concerned the claim of Lidia Burgos against Citywide Central Insurance Program and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division had concluded that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Board's determinations regarding the claimant's degree of impairment and loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn this conclusion.

Workers' CompensationImpairmentWage-earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimantInsurance ProgramBoard DeterminationJudicial ReviewAffirmed Order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,503 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