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. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Case No. 15
Regular Panel Decision

Beltre v. Lititz Healthcare Staffing Solutions LLC

Plaintiffs R. Anthony Beltre and Sean Jones initiated a class action against Lititz Healthcare Staffing Solutions LLC, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), and John Doe defendants, alleging overtime and 'spread of hours' violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendant Lititz moved to dismiss the complaint, contending it was not the plaintiffs' employer or joint employer, a crucial element for claims under FLSA and NYLL. The Court, employing the 'economic reality' test for employer status, reviewed affidavits and arguments from both sides. Ultimately, the Court denied Lititz's motion, concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged an employment relationship and that evidence, including Lititz's payroll responsibilities and contractual designation as 'sole employer,' made its employer status plausible.

Employment LawFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime ClaimsJoint Employer StatusMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Economic Reality TestStaffing Agency LiabilityX-ray Technicians
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. CA 13-01105
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2014

KALEIDA HEALTH v. UNIVERA HEALTHCARE

This case concerns an appeal by Utica Mutual Insurance Company from a judgment that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Kaleida Health and Univera Healthcare. The judgment declared Utica obligated to pay an outstanding hospital bill to Kaleida Health. Utica argued that collateral estoppel applied due to a Workers' Compensation Board determination, but the court found Kaleida Health and Univera Healthcare were not parties to that proceeding. Utica also contended the action was barred by arbitration, which was rejected as not compulsory. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding Utica was responsible for the hospital bill as the patient's admission was a continuation of treatment for a work-related injury.

Workers' CompensationHospital BillCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentArbitrationPublic Health LawAppellate PracticeInsurance ObligationWork-Related InjuryHealth Care Provider
References
3
Case No. 2015-06-0977
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2019

Clay, Sharee v. Signature Healthcare

Ms. Clay, a CNA for Signature Healthcare, sustained neck and shoulder injuries while assisting a patient. Signature initially denied her workers' compensation claim, asserting her injuries were due to a prior car accident or pre-existing degenerative conditions. The Court found Ms. Clay's injuries were primarily work-related, crediting the testimony of Dr. Lanford and Dr. West. The Court ordered Signature Healthcare to provide ongoing medical treatment for her work-related injuries and pay her $20,731.50 in permanent partial disability benefits and $580.71 in temporary total disability benefits, totaling $21,312.21.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryCausationMedical TestimonyImpairment RatingDisability BenefitsTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical ExaminationCar Accident
References
6
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2022

Williams, Lawrence v. Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare

This case concerns an appeal by Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare regarding the calculation of death benefits for Lawrence Williams, the surviving spouse of Linda Williams, a healthcare worker who died from COVID-19. The parties initially agreed on a settlement, but the trial court, presided over by Judge Deana C. Seymour, rejected it due to an inconsistent calculation of the 'maximum total benefit.' The trial court concluded that the maximum total benefit should be calculated by multiplying the state’s average weekly wage by 450 weeks, as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(15)(D). The Appeals Board, led by Presiding Judge Timothy W. Conner, affirmed the trial court’s decision, clarifying that while the weekly benefit rate is tied to the deceased employee's wages, the overall duration of payments is capped by an across-the-board limitation based on the state’s average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCOVID-19Maximum Total BenefitStatutory InterpretationState Average Weekly WageSurviving SpouseAppellate ReviewSettlement RejectionHealthcare Worker
References
5
Case No. M2005-01818-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2008

Bridgett Hill v. NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC

The administrators of Barbara Hill's estate, Bridgett Hill and Janece Wilson, filed a wrongful death suit against NHC Healthcare/Nashville, LLC, and Medic One after Ms. Hill died following her transfer from the nursing home to a hospital. NHC Healthcare sought to compel arbitration based on a clause in Ms. Hill's admission agreement, which also included a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The trial court denied this motion, finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that the arbitration agreement was an unconscionable contract of adhesion due to Ms. Hill's vulnerable state, lack of clear explanation of terms, its 'take-it-or-leave-it' nature, ambiguous provisions, and the potentially prohibitive upfront costs for arbitration, which would effectively deter claimants from seeking legal redress.

Wrongful DeathArbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityNursing Home NegligenceContract of AdhesionWaiver of Jury TrialMedical MalpracticeAppellate ReviewContract EnforcementCost Prohibitiveness
References
34
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. 04-14-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2015

Andrea Collie v. IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto General Agency, Ltd. D/B/A Pronto Insurance

Andrea Collie sued IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto Insurance for race discrimination and retaliatory discharge. A jury found in favor of the appellees. Collie appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not providing a permissive-pretext instruction to the jury. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's discretion in jury instructions, noting that the jury question tracked the Texas Pattern Jury Charge and correctly placed the burden of proof on Collie. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the requested instruction was not reasonably necessary for a proper verdict.

Race DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeJury InstructionsPermissive-Pretext InstructionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorBurden of Proof
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 718 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