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
Feb 09, 2004

Claim of Pache v. Aviation Volunteer Fire Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board granted benefits to the widow of a fire chief who died of a heart attack, finding an implied contract of coverage under Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law § 30 (2) between Aviation Volunteer Fire Company and the City of New York. The City appealed, contending there was no evidence of FDNY Commissioner approval for such a contract and insufficient proof of its formation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the City Charter provisions did not exclusively assign contracting authority to the Commissioner and that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of an implied-in-fact contract, partly due to the City's failure to produce a knowledgeable employee. The court declined to consider a new argument regarding General City Law § 16-a.

Implied contractVolunteer Firefighters’ Benefit LawWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal liabilityFatal heart attackAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationCity CharterFire DepartmentContract formation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc.

Appellant Leonardo Rodriguez appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lockhart Contracting Services, Inc. in a suit concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rodriguez was injured while working and asserted negligence claims against Lockhart Contracting, arguing he was not an employee of Prime Source, the Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Lockhart Contracting had a co-employment agreement with. The appellate court identified a genuine issue of material fact regarding Rodriguez's employment status with Prime Source, as he had not completed the necessary employment paperwork. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, which had barred Rodriguez's suit based on the exclusive remedy provision, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation DisputeExclusive Remedy DefenseProfessional Employer Organization LiabilityCo-employment RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor Code ComplianceWorkplace Injury ClaimAppellate Review StandardFactual DisputeNegligence Action
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dicocco v. Capital Area Community Health Plan, Inc.

A licensed practical nurse sued her employer for wrongful termination, alleging disability discrimination under Executive Law § 296 and breach of an implied employment contract. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment on both claims. On appeal, the court dismissed the disability discrimination claim, ruling that the termination was due to 'misuse of sick time' and not a disability. However, the appellate court upheld the denial of summary judgment for the breach of implied contract claim, citing potential triable issues of fact regarding the existence of an implied contract based on the employer's personnel handbook and the plaintiff's reliance on its 'just cause' termination policy. The case was remitted for further proceedings on the contract claim.

Employment lawWrongful terminationImplied contractAt-will employmentPersonnel handbookSick leave abuseDisability discriminationSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBreach of contract
References
11
Case No. 02-16-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Howard Michael Lauderback, Individually, and D/ B/A New Era Contract Services v. FMWB Inc.

Appellant Howard Michael Lauderback appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellee FMWB, Inc. Lauderback, a contractor for mowing services with the Texas Department of Transportation, entered into a subcontract with FMWB. A dispute arose when Lauderback withheld payment from FMWB, alleging that FMWB's certificate of workers' compensation insurance was inadequate, despite a special provision in the original TDOT contract requiring such insurance. FMWB subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and a suit on a sworn account. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that FMWB was not statutorily obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance under Texas Labor Code Ann. § 505.013, and Lauderback failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding FMWB's performance or his entitlement to an offset.

Breach of ContractSummary Judgment AppealSubcontract AgreementWorkers' Compensation PolicyTexas Labor CodeContractual PerformanceAffirmative DefenseOffset ClaimAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seminerio v. West Hamilton Beach Volunteers, Inc.

The claimant, a volunteer firefighter with the West Hamilton Beach Volunteer Fire Department (WHBFD) in Queens, fractured her ankle while on duty. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the City of New York was responsible for the claimant’s benefits, citing an implied-in-fact contract between WHBFD and the City. The City appealed this decision. Referencing a similar prior case, Matter of Pache v Aviation Volunteer Fire Co., the court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that an implied-in-fact contract existed due to the cooperative relationship and shared resources between WHBFD and the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY). Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, applying the doctrine of stare decisis.

Volunteer Firefighters Benefit LawWorkers Compensation BoardImplied-in-Fact ContractMunicipal LiabilityStare DecisisAppellate ReviewFire DepartmentVolunteer ServicePersonal InjuryNew York Law
References
3
Case No. 22-0889
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2024

Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. v. Theodis Bruce, Maria Bruce, Virginia Cordova, Sergio Cordova, Victor Corral, Jose Dominguez, Magdalena Juarez, Bernarda Lopez, Elisa Negrete, Maria Reyes, Luis Velazquez, Jose Valdez, Antonio Salgado, Maria Salgado, and Iris Jordan

In a construction dispute, homeowners sued Oscar Renda Contracting, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence, seeking actual and exemplary damages. The jury awarded exemplary damages, but its verdict was not unanimous. The trial court excluded exemplary damages, citing Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003, which requires jury unanimity for such awards. The court of appeals reversed, suggesting that unanimity could be implied and that the defendant had waived its objection. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals, holding that the burden to secure a unanimous verdict for exemplary damages rests with the claimant. The Court emphasized that unanimity cannot be implied or deemed in the face of a divided verdict and reinstated the trial court's judgment excluding exemplary damages.

Exemplary DamagesJury UnanimityCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofTexas Supreme CourtConstruction DisputeGross NegligenceDivided VerdictJury Instructions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.

An employee, Harold Derdiarian, was severely injured at a construction site in Mount Vernon when a driver, James Dickens, suffered an epileptic seizure, crashed through inadequate barricades, struck Derdiarian, and caused boiling liquid enamel to splatter on him. Derdiarian and his wife sued the contractor, Felix Contracting Corporation, and Con Edison for negligence. The trial court found Felix, Dickens, and Con Edison liable. Felix appealed, arguing Dickens's negligence was a superseding cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the question of proximate cause is for the fact-finder, and the risk of a vehicle entering an improperly protected work area was foreseeable, thus Dickens's negligence did not sever the causal link to Felix's liability.

Proximate CauseNegligenceConstruction Site AccidentEpileptic SeizureWorkplace SafetyIntervening CauseForeseeabilityAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLiability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 7,423 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