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. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. 01-05-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2006

HARRIS CTY TOLL RD. AUTH. v. Southwestern Bell Tel., LP

This case addresses whether Harris County or Southwestern Bell Telephone (SBC) is responsible for utility relocation costs necessitated by the construction of the Westpark Tollway. SBC sought reimbursement under Transportation Code section 251.102 and for inverse condemnation under the Texas Constitution. The Court of Appeals concluded that while SBC is an 'eligible utility facility,' section 251.102 does not waive Harris County's governmental immunity from suit. Furthermore, the court determined that SBC does not possess a vested property interest in the public right-of-way sufficient to support an inverse condemnation claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SBC and rendered judgment for Harris County.

Utility Relocation CostsGovernmental ImmunityInverse CondemnationTexas Transportation CodeTexas Utilities CodePublic Right-of-WaySummary JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionPrejudgment InterestConstitutional Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2004

Andrew T.B. v. Brewster Central School District

This case involves an appeal by Brewster Central School District and Garden Street School from a Supreme Court order that granted a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). The claim originated from alleged sexual abuse of an infant on a school bus. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the mother's individual claim due to the infancy toll being personal to the child, but affirmed the granting of the infant's petition. The court found that petitioners established a reasonable excuse for the delay linked to the infant's age, and that the appellants had actual knowledge of the incident and were not substantially prejudiced by the delay. The order was affirmed with costs to the appellants payable by Patricia B., individually.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e(5)Infant PetitionerSexual AbuseSchool Bus IncidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceReasonable ExcuseInfancy TollDerivative Cause of Action
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. County of Nassau

Plaintiffs Ruth, Christina, and Sabrina Perez filed a lawsuit against the County of Nassau, its police department, and several police officers, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State law following an alleged arrest and assault on March 18, 2000. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the claims were time-barred. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, granted the motion to dismiss the federal and state claims brought by Ruth Perez and Christina Perez, finding them untimely. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Sabrina Perez's federal claims due to infancy tolling, but granted the motion to dismiss her state law claims as time-barred.

Federal Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsRule 12(b)(6)Relation Back DoctrineCPLRFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionAssaultBattery
References
23
Case No. 2993/09
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2012

Kelley v. Schneck

This case involves a cross-appeal arising from a tragic accident where a young child died and another was injured when a stove, allegedly improperly installed without an anti-tip bracket by the defendant contractor, tipped over. Plaintiff Melanie Kelley, and later adoptive parents Kimberly and Andrew Schultz, brought a negligence action. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claim for the deceased child's pain and suffering as time-barred due to procedural errors and the statute of limitations. However, the court allowed the claim for the surviving child's mental anguish to proceed, benefiting from an infancy toll, and permitted further discovery on the issue of the defendant's duty to third parties. The appellate court affirmed this order.

NegligenceFatal AccidentStove InstallationAnti-Tip BracketStatute of LimitationsInfancy TollSummary JudgmentContractual DutyThird-Party LiabilityPremises Safety
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angus Partners LLC v. Walder

Plaintiffs Angus Partners LLC d/b/a Angus Energy and White Crane Martial Arts, Inc. brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), and their officials, alleging that bridge and tunnel tolls violated the constitutionally-protected right to travel and the dormant Commerce Clause, as well as New York common law claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs cross-moved. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found no discrimination against interstate commerce, noting that toll discounts were available to all E-ZPass users regardless of residency. It also concluded that the tolls were based on a fair approximation of use and were not excessive, as the MTA and TBTA operate an integrated transportation system providing substantial benefits to toll-payers, such as reduced traffic congestion and economic advantages. Consequently, the state law claims, being premised on unconstitutional or unlawful tolls, were also dismissed.

Right to TravelDormant Commerce ClauseTollsTransportation AuthoritySummary JudgmentNew York LawUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedIntegrated Transportation SystemPublic Benefit Corporation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2006

Mione v. McGrath

Plaintiffs Peter Mione and Anne Mione, on behalf of themselves and their minor children A.M. and J.M., filed a civil rights action against Sullivan County, its Sheriffs Department, Villa Roma Resort Hotel, and two hotel employees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. The lawsuit arose from events in 1998-1999 involving the alleged unlawful detention of their child and subsequent prosecution of Mione for child abuse, which was later dismissed. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The District Court granted the motion, dismissing Peter and Anne Mione's claims with prejudice due to the expiration of the applicable statutes of limitations. The claims on behalf of the minor children, A.M. and J.M., were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint, acknowledging that the statute of limitations was tolled during their infancy. Additionally, the claims against the private entity defendants (Hotel and employees) were dismissed for failing to meet the state actor requirement under § 1983, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Civil RightsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestSection 1983Section 1981Section 1985Section 1986State Actor Requirement
References
41
Case No. No. 21-0797
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2023

Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. v. El Pistolon II, Ltd.

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed a court of appeals' judgment concerning equitable tolling in a defective design and development lawsuit. Plaintiff El Pistolón II, Ltd. initially sued Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. for negligence and breach of contract, but the suit was dismissed for a deficient certificate of merit. El Pistolón refiled, arguing that the limitations period should have been tolled during the appeal of the earlier suit. The Court clarified that equitable tolling, including "Hughes tolling" or a broader "legal impediment rule," is limited in scope and does not apply when an earlier suit is dismissed and refiled. As a result, El Pistolón's claims were deemed time-barred, and the trial court's summary judgment was reinstated.

Equitable TollingStatute of LimitationsCertificate of MeritCivil Practice and Remedies CodeDefective PleadingLegal PrecedentAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentTexas LawConstruction Defects
References
46
Case No. 14-02-00582-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Akinwamide, Patrick Olajide v. Transportation Insurance Company, Automatic Data Processing Inc., and CNA Insurance Co.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide filed a lawsuit after an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim against his employer and two insurance companies, alleging fraud, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees based on limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Akinwamide appealed, asserting the trial court improperly granted summary judgment by failing to negate his equitable tolling defense to limitations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Akinwamide failed to provide summary judgment proof for his tolling claims and that his lawsuit was untimely even if tolling applied. Thus, the appellees successfully established their limitations defense.

Summary judgmentLimitations periodRes judicataCollateral estoppelEquitable tollingFraudulent concealmentNegligenceWorkers' compensation claimAppellate reviewAffirmative defense
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 370 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