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

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Gaedcke Equipment Co.

The plaintiff, Gaedcke Equipment Co., sued its insurance providers, Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York and Continental Insurance Company, after they refused to defend Gaedcke in a prior wrongful discharge lawsuit. This wrongful discharge suit was brought by a former employee who had received workers' compensation benefits. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Gaedcke, ordering the insurers to defend. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing Artco-Bell Corp. v. Liberty-Mutual Insurance Co. The court held that the insurance policy's coverage for workers' compensation benefits and bodily injury damages did not extend to liability arising from wrongful discharge claims under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. Consequently, a take-nothing judgment was entered against Gaedcke Equipment Co. and in favor of the defendant insurance companies.

Insurance CoverageWrongful DischargeWorkers' CompensationDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmployer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
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
Mar 15, 2012

RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP v. Frankel

This case involves petitioners challenging a ruling that their backup power equipment is assessable as real property and contesting tax assessments on that equipment. The petitioners argued that the equipment should not be considered real property under Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12) (f) because it falls under an exception for movable machinery or equipment. They also contended that the equipment should be exempt as telecommunications equipment and that assessments were void due to lack of timely notice. The court modified the lower court's decision, declaring that the backup power equipment is assessable as real property and that the assessments are not nullities for lack of notice.

real propertytax assessmentbackup power equipmentpower generating apparatusmovable machinerytelecommunications equipmentRPTLstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1997

Delio v. Percom Equipment Rental Corp.

Cono Delio, Jr., an employee of Perez Interboro Asphalt Co., sustained personal injuries during employment from a dump truck rented from Percom Equipment Rental Corp. The plaintiffs sued Percom, alleging negligent maintenance. The Supreme Court denied Percom's motion for summary judgment, citing that Perez Interboro's Workers’ Compensation immunity did not shield Percom. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, determining that Perez Interboro was responsible for vehicle maintenance under its rental agreement with Percom. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of negligence by Percom, leading to the granting of summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentRental AgreementVehicle MaintenanceAppellate ReversalThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityKings CountyDump Truck Accident
References
4
Case No. 01-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

Harry Simmons v. Briggs Equipment Trust

Harry Simmons, the appellant, challenged the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Briggs Equipment Trust, the appellee. Simmons sustained a back injury after jumping from a burning rail-car mover (TrackMobile) which Briggs was contracted to maintain. Simmons alleged Briggs's negligent maintenance led to a ruptured hydraulic hose causing the fire. The trial court granted Briggs's no-evidence summary judgment motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Simmons failed to provide the necessary expert testimony to establish the standard of care for TrackMobile maintenance and a breach of that duty, as these technical matters are beyond a layperson's common knowledge.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppealExpert TestimonyStandard of CareProximate CauseHydraulic SystemRail-Car MoverFirePersonal Injury
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 778 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