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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Stuart Little appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Needhams after he suffered injuries during a horse riding activity at their stables, colliding with a tree near the track. He contended that his injuries were not an inherent risk of equine activity and that statutory exceptions to immunity applied, specifically faulty equipment, a dangerous latent condition, or the Needhams' willful or wanton disregard for his safety. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Little's injuries resulted from dangers that are an inherent risk of equine activity, such as a collision with an object and the unpredictable behavior of an equine. The court also found no evidence to support the application of any statutory exceptions to immunity.

Equine LiabilitySummary JudgmentInherent RiskPersonal InjuryTexas Civil PracticeHorse Riding AccidentAppellate AffirmancePremises LiabilityNegligence DefenseStatutory Immunity
References
13
Case No. 01-06-01108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2007

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Stuart Little appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Susan and Alan Needham, owners of a feed store and horse stables. Little was injured when the horse he was riding veered off a track on adjacent property and collided with a tree. He argued that his injuries were not an inherent risk of equine activity and that exceptions to immunity under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Little's injuries resulted from inherent risks of equine activity, such as a horse's unpredictable behavior and collision with an object. The court also concluded that Little failed to raise a fact issue regarding the exceptions for faulty equipment, dangerous latent conditions, or willful and wanton disregard for safety.

Equine activityInherent riskSummary judgmentPremises liabilityFaulty equipmentLatent conditionWillful and wanton disregardGross negligenceHorse riding injuryAppellate review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This wrongful death case originated from Francis lone Lethcoe suing the co-owners of a property after her husband, Vernon Lethcoe, died from injuries sustained when the roof collapsed at his workplace, Bain and Holden Tire Company, Inc. The plaintiff argued several exceptions to landlord non-liability, including pre-existing dangerous conditions, the property's unsuitability for its leased purpose, negligent repairs by an owner, retained control by the owners, and a duty to ensure structural integrity due to inherently dangerous activity. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment granted to the defendants, finding the employer's knowledge of the dangerous condition (accumulated rubber dust on the roof) was co-extensive with or greater than the owners'. The court also concluded that any cleaning efforts by Ricky Ray Holden, a co-owner and president of the employer, were likely in his capacity as president, not as an owner retaining control.

Wrongful DeathLandlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoof CollapseDangerous ConditionLease AgreementEmployer ResponsibilityProperty Ownership
References
11
Case No. NO. 07-05-0190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2006

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Sandra Willis, Allen Willis, and Fremont Industrial Indemnity Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Gary Willoughby. The dispute arose after Sandra Willis broke her ankle during a self-defense class taught by Willoughby, having previously signed a release of liability. Willoughby moved for summary judgment, arguing he owed no duties due to inherent risk, express assumption of risk, and the signed release. The trial court granted the motion without specifying the grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Sandra Willis contractually assumed the risk of injury, thereby relieving Willoughby of any duty to protect her from foreseeable harm in what was explicitly acknowledged as an inherently dangerous activity.

Summary JudgmentContractual Assumption of RiskRelease of LiabilitySelf-Defense Training InjuryNegligence DefenseAppellate AffirmanceTexas Court of AppealsWaiver of ClaimsForeseeability of RiskWorker's Compensation Subrogation
References
7
Case No. W2004-00477-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

James Crain, an apprentice electrician, sustained severe burns while working on an electrical project for TAM Electric Company, an independent contractor, at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Crain filed a lawsuit against Baptist Memorial Hospital, alleging negligence under a theory of premises liability, claiming the hospital owed him a duty to warn of latent defects or dangerous conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Baptist, determining that the work was inherently dangerous and thus, the landowner (Baptist) did not owe a duty of care to the independent contractor's employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the exception to the general duty of a landowner applies when an independent contractor is hired to perform inherently dangerous work, and working with electricity falls into this category.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentInherently Dangerous WorkDuty of CareElectrical AccidentLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
21
Case No. 746 F.3d 191
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Texas Supreme Court addressed a certified question from the Fifth Circuit concerning an employee's ability to recover against a nonsubscribing employer for injuries sustained from a known premises defect that their job duties required them to remedy. The Court clarified that, generally, an employer's premises-liability duty does not obligate them to warn or protect employees from unreasonably dangerous conditions that are open and obvious or already known to the employee. This general rule applies even for nonsubscribing employers, despite the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act's (TWCA) waiver of defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk. However, two exceptions exist: dangers from foreseeable third-party criminal activity and situations where the employee must necessarily use the dangerous premises and cannot adequately mitigate the risk. In these exceptional cases, the employer retains a duty to make the premises safe, and the TWCA prevents them from using the employee's awareness of the risk as a defense. The Court also affirmed that a separate 'necessary-instrumentalities' claim, based on an employer's failure to provide safe equipment, is distinct from a premises-liability claim and does not require contemporaneous negligent activity.

Premises LiabilityEmployer DutyNonsubscribing EmployerTexas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA)Open and Obvious HazardKnown DangerCertified QuestionNegligenceAssumption of RiskContributory Negligence
References
52
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,725 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