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. 09-19-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

BAM Heavy Equipment and Repair, LLC and Bert T. Johnson v. Michael E. Jackson

Michael E. Jackson sued BAM Heavy Equipment and Repair, LLC and Bert T. Johnson for breach of contract regarding unpaid 'dividends' from an amended operating agreement. A jury found in Jackson's favor and awarded him $117,318. BAM appealed, raising issues concerning Jackson's membership status in the LLC, the sufficiency of evidence for damages, and alleged jury charge errors related to ratification and an unspecified agreement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the damages award and no abuse of discretion in the jury charge or the admission of evidence.

Breach of ContractLLC MembershipJury VerdictDamages AwardLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyJury InstructionsRatificationImplied RatificationCasteel Error
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hegar v. Sunstate Equip. Co.

Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC, which rents heavy machinery, included delivery and pick-up fees in its Cost-of-Goods-Sold (COGS) deduction under Texas Tax Code section 171.1012. The Comptroller of Public Accounts, Glenn Hegar, audited Sunstate and disallowed these deductions, leading to an assessment of nearly $130,000 in taxes and $11,000 in penalties and interest. Sunstate paid under protest and sued for a refund, winning at the trial court. On appeal, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Sunstate's delivery and pick-up costs are not eligible for COGS deduction under section 171.1012(k-1) or section 171.1012(i). The Court clarified that the deduction is for costs of acquiring or producing the equipment, not for selling or distributing it.

Franchise TaxCOGS DeductionTax CodeHeavy Equipment RentalDelivery FeesPick-up FeesTax AuditSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2-05-154-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Woodrow S. Peery v. Stanley Mechanic Tools, Inc. A/K/A Stanley Mechanics Tools A/K/A the Stanley Works

This is an appeal in a workers' compensation employment retaliation case. Appellant Woodrow S. Peery challenged the trial court's order in favor of appellee Stanley Mechanic Tools, Inc. Peery contended that three veniremembers were biased and that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause. The appellate court found that Peery did not properly preserve error because he failed to peremptorily strike two objectionable veniremembers and did not timely notify the trial court before the jury was empaneled. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

workers' compensationemployment retaliationjury selectionchallenges for causeveniremembersjury biaspreservation of errorappellate procedureTexas civil procedurememorandum opinion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp.

Joseph Kaban was injured in a 1972 automobile accident during employment. He received workers' compensation benefits, and he and his wife sued other parties, Thompson and Mazza, who then brought a third-party action against Kaban's employer, Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp. (Manhattan). Due to the insolvency of Thompson and Mazza, the Kabans' judgment went uncollected. In 1992, attorney Louis S. Reich, as an assignee, attempted to collect on the judgment from Manhattan using a Feldman-type loan agreement. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that applying the Feldman mechanism in cases where the third-party defendant is the plaintiff's employer directly conflicts with the public policy of workers' compensation exclusivity, which is the employee's sole remedy for workplace injuries. The Court dismissed the complaint, affirming that such arrangements cannot circumvent the limitations of an employer's liability for contribution.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnificationLoan AgreementSatisfaction of JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuentes v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co.

The case involves an appeal by Ruben Fuentes and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund against Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company and its affiliates, challenging a trial court's summary judgment. Fuentes was injured by a conveyor belt at Adcock Gin, which was manufactured by Continental and installed under its supervision. The central legal issue was the applicability of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.009, a ten-year statute of repose for improvements to real property. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the conveyor belt qualified as an 'improvement' and Continental had 'constructed' it, thus invoking the statute's protection against liability for the injury.

Statute of ReposeSummary Judgment AppealProduct LiabilityConveyor SystemReal Property ImprovementConstruction SupervisionManufacturer LiabilityAnnexation to RealtySubrogation ClaimWorker Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalloo ex rel. Ulimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc. v. Unlimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Kalloo, Shahrazz Mohammad, and Clement Albertie sued Unlimited Mechanical Co. of New York, Inc. and its president, Nicholas Bournias, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs claimed they were not paid appropriate overtime compensation for hours worked, uncompensated travel time, and, in Mr. Kalloo's case, unpaid wages for his last two weeks of employment. The court found Mr. Bournias individually liable as an employer under both acts and determined that Mr. Kalloo was an employee, not an independent contractor. The court concluded that the defendants failed to pay full overtime and straight time wages for hours worked and travel time, awarding substantial damages and liquidated damages to all three plaintiffs. Defendants' counterclaims for unjust enrichment against Mr. Albertie and tortious interference against Mr. Kalloo were denied.

Wage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationUnpaid Travel TimeFLSA ViolationsNYLL ViolationsEmployer ResponsibilityIndividual Employer LiabilityEmployee ClassificationDamages AwardLiquidated Damages
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00714 [224 AD3d 1364]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2024

Triest v. Nixon Equip. Servs., Inc.

Paul Triest, an employee, sustained injuries while unloading a loaner alignment jack from a van owned by Nixon Equipment Services, Inc. Triest initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, determined that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as the incident did not involve an elevation-related risk under the statute. However, the court erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding unresolved factual issues regarding Nixon Equipment Services, Inc.'s control over the work and whether Triest was a volunteer. Consequently, the order was modified to reinstate these two causes of action.

Labor Law §240(1)Labor Law §200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryElevation-Related RiskControl of WorkVolunteer StatusAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,376 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