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. E2001-00258-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

George Tipton v. Axis Fabrication & Machine Co.

This personal injury case involves George Michael Tipton, who was injured by a metal cutting machine operated by Jeff Thomas at Axis Fabrication & Machine Company. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, citing a failure to prove lack of reasonable care. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the defendants breached their duty of care by not warning Tipton of potential dangers and failing to replace a machine guard. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the defendants' negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

personal injurypremises liabilitydirected verdictnegligenceduty of careforeseeabilityworkplace injurymachine operationwarning signsvicarious liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between American Machine & Foundry Co. & Fay

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. No. 20-0505
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

in Re Eagleridge Operating, Llc

In this premises-defect case, Eagleridge Operating, LLC sought mandamus relief after a trial court struck its designation of Aruba Petroleum, Inc. as a responsible third party. Eagleridge contended that Aruba, a former wellsite owner-operator, held continuing responsibility for injuries from a burst gas pipeline under an independent contractor theory, despite having conveyed its ownership interest. The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petition, affirming the lower courts' decision that Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Jenkins was controlling. The Court reiterated that a property owner acts solely as an owner when improving its own property, and responsibility for premises defects generally transfers with the conveyance of ownership. The Court concluded that Aruba's compensation as operator of record did not transform its role from owner to independent contractor, and thus its responsibility terminated upon conveyance.

Premises liabilityMandamusResponsible third partyProperty ownershipOil and gas lawIndependent contractorOwner-operatorTexas Supreme CourtAppellate procedureCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
Case No. 10-10-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2012

Mary Frances Haferkamp v. SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company, LP, Mariner Healthcare Management Company, SSC Pasadena Operating Company, LP, LLC, Savanseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC

Mary Frances Haferkamp appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company LP and other entities. Haferkamp sued for negligence due to an alleged workplace injury, claiming appellees were nonsubscribers to worker’s compensation insurance and failed to provide a safe workplace and adequate tools. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proximate cause and no breach of duty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Haferkamp's deposition testimony conclusively established that the appellees' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury, as the patient's sudden act was unpreventable and she would not have used a gait belt even if available.

Negligence ClaimWorkplace InjurySummary Judgment AppealProximate CauseTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEmployer Duty of CareAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyGait Belt
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Dyke v. Columbia MacHine, Inc.

Plaintiff Travis Van Dyke, a Pennsylvania resident, was gravely injured while performing maintenance on a palletizer machine manufactured by Columbia Machine Inc. and operated by his employer, Leprino Foods Company, at a plant located on the New York and Pennsylvania state line. Plaintiff received Pennsylvania workers' compensation. Columbia, a Washington corporation, filed a third-party complaint against Leprino, a Colorado corporation with operations in multiple states, seeking contribution or indemnification under New York Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which allows such claims in "grave injury" cases. Leprino moved to dismiss, arguing that Pennsylvania law, which prohibits such third-party actions against employers, should apply. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, found that Pennsylvania had a greater interest in protecting its statutory scheme immunizing employers. Consequently, the court granted Leprino's motion to dismiss Columbia's third-party complaint, ruling that Pennsylvania law applies.

Choice of LawWorkers' CompensationContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsProducts LiabilityFederal DiversityNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02699 [183 AD3d 992]
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2020

Matter of Muller v. Square Deal Machining, Inc.

Claimant Bruce Muller, a saw operator, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to back, stomach, and leg injuries resulting from repetitive heavy lifting. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, citing pre-existing conditions. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, establishing the claim for an occupational disease stemming from work-related aggravation of his pre-existing back condition. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the Board's rule that allowed the claimant not to serve notice of his application for Board review to their attorney, arguing it violated their right to counsel. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the issue was not properly preserved for appeal, and even if it had been, the Board's rule was rational and within its rule-making authority.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive traumaPre-existing conditionWorkers' Compensation Board reviewRight to counselDue processRule-making authorityAdministrative reviewNotice requirementsAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 2,357 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