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. 2019 NY Slip Op 03032 [171 AD3d 1145]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2019

Houston v. State of New York

Cornelius Houston, Sr., an ironworker, sustained a traumatic brain injury when iron posts fell and struck him while working on a bridge replacement project. He and his wife (claimants) commenced a claim against the State of New York, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The claimants moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, but the Court of Claims denied their motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that the claimants failed to establish a prima facie case that the incident resulted from the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device or to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the claimant's own conduct as the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryLabor LawFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentPrima FacieProximate CauseIronworkerBridge ReplacementTraumatic Brain InjuryAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 07-CV-3256 (JFB) (AYS)
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Cotter

Plaintiff Robert Houston filed this action against Thomas Cotter, John Weiss, and the County of Suffolk, alleging excessive force and Due Process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury found Officer Cotter liable for excessive force and the County of Suffolk liable for a Due Process claim, awarding a total of $30,000 in damages to Houston. The court, presided over by District Judge Joseph F. Bianco, then considered Houston's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Finding the requested hours and costs excessive due to overstaffing, vague billing, and unreasonable expenditures, the court applied significant reductions. Ultimately, the court awarded Houston $346,479.55 in attorneys' fees and $80,091.90 in costs against the liable defendants.

Section 1983Excessive ForceDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesLitigation CostsCivil RightsDamages AwardJury VerdictLodestar MethodBilling Records
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridgewood Savings Bank v. Houston (In Re Houston)

The debtor, Leonard W. Houston, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiff Ridgewood Savings Bank, holding a mortgage on the debtor's home, commenced an adversary proceeding to vacate the automatic stay to facilitate foreclosure. A default judgment was granted against the debtor for failure to appear, which he moved to set aside, citing excusable neglect due to an ankle injury. The case was remanded on appeal for further findings. The court found that while the debtor's failure to appear constituted excusable neglect, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as he lacked equity in the property and had not made mortgage payments or reimbursed the bank for taxes for an extended period, leading to a lack of adequate protection for the Bank. Consequently, the court denied the debtor's application to set aside the default judgment.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayDefault JudgmentForeclosureExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefenseAdequate ProtectionMortgage LienChapter 13Equity Cushion
References
29
Case No. ADJ282767 (AHM 0149033)
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

GARY WALKER vs. HOUSTON INDEMNITY, TEXANS, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an award to applicant Gary Walker. The original award found Walker sustained industrial injury as a professional athlete, resulting in 92% permanent disability and need for further medical treatment. The defendant's argument that an employment contract prohibited this California claim, including choice of law and venue, was rejected. This contractual issue was not raised at trial, thus waived, and the Board also asserted its own jurisdiction.

Industrial injuryProfessional athletePermanent disabilityFurther medical treatmentEmployment contractChoice of lawVenueJurisdictionPersonal jurisdictionSubject matter jurisdiction
References
2
Case No. ADJ3401110 (RDG 0077725) ADJ1171761 (RDG 0076230)
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

HAROLD HOUSTON vs. CITY OF REDDING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Harold Houston's petition for reconsideration against the City of Redding. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), finding no grounds for reconsideration. The petition was also dismissed as a petition for removal due to no pending challengeable order and a request for WCJ disqualification was denied for lack of grounds.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalDisqualificationWCJ biasWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeCity of ReddingHarold HoustonHanna Brophy
References
0
Case No. ADJ1171761 (RDG 0076230) ADJ3401110 (RDG 0077725)
Regular
Dec 10, 2012

HAROLD HOUSTON vs. CITY OF REDDING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the City of Redding's petition for reconsideration regarding a prior award of medical mileage reimbursement to Harold Houston. While affirming the award of medical mileage, the Board amended the Findings of Fact to clarify that no past interest is due. Interest on the medical mileage will only accrue from the date the amount becomes determined and payable, as per Labor Code section 5800. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the specific amount owed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of ReddingHarold HoustonPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderCompromise & Releasemedical mileagefuture medical treatmentLabor Code section 5800accrued interest
References
0
Case No. ADJ7014186
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

JESSIE KENLAW vs. HOUSTON COMETS, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has jurisdiction over an injury sustained by Jessie Kenlaw, a coach, while employed by the Houston Comets. The defendant argued that California jurisdiction was improper as the applicant was not a resident, the contract was outside California, and the injury did not occur within the state. The WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's finding of jurisdiction, determining that the applicant's work activities in California, though temporary, were a contributing cause of her cumulative trauma injury. The Board found sufficient evidence of these California-based activities and their causal link to the injury, rejecting the defendant's argument that de minimis exposure negates jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardcumulative traumaindustrial injuryjurisdictionextraterritorial jurisdictionLabor Code section 3600.5(b)date of injurycompensable disabilitycontributing causeAgreed Medical Examiner
References
7
Case No. ADJ8061000
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

KENNETH KENNARD vs. HOUSTON OILERS, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Kennard v. Houston Oilers*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was due to the petitioner's withdrawal of the reconsideration request. The original decision, which the reconsideration sought to challenge, was issued on November 13, 2013. The Board's order formally recorded this dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8061000Santa Ana District OfficeNovember 13 2013Houston OilersTIG Specialty InsuranceZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ7684339
Regular
Apr 28, 2014

CARL GREENWOOD vs. GREEN BAY PACKERS, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, HOUSTON THUNDERBEARS, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to join the Houston Thunderbears and their insurer Travelers as defendants. This decision rescinded the prior denial of joinder, finding that the Thunderbears had previously appeared and accepted coverage for the applicant's cumulative injury claim. The Board determined that joinder was appropriate to ensure due process and judicial economy, especially given allegations of the applicant working in California during their last year of injurious exposure with the Thunderbears. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalJoinder of DefendantCumulative InjuryJurisdictionInjurious ExposureParty DefendantInsurerDue ProcessJudicial Economy
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 26 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