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. 2015-01-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Langford, Jordan v. Cleveland Tent & Party Rentals

Jordan Langford sought an interlocutory order for medical and temporary disability benefits after sustaining multiple injuries in a work-related truck accident on October 13, 2014. The employer, Scott Rymer, d/b/a Cleveland Tent and Party Rentals/Party Time Rentals, was uninsured and disputed the claim, asserting Mr. Langford was an independent contractor and the injury occurred during a deviation from business. However, the Court found that Rymer employed more than five individuals, making it subject to workers' compensation law, and that Mr. Langford was an employee acting within the scope of his employment. Consequently, the Court granted the interlocutory order, entitling Mr. Langford to medical treatment, including care from Dr. Brett Sanders for his fractured ankle, and temporary disability benefits for the period from October 14, 2014, to April 1, 2015.

expedited hearinginterlocutory ordermedical benefitstemporary disabilityemployee statusindependent contractorscope of employmentautomobile accidentankle fracturesurgery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1940

President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Janowitz

The court amended its previous decision from July 2, 1940, concerning the will of Julius Janowitz. The interlocutory decree was significantly modified by striking several original paragraphs and adding a new decretal paragraph. This new addition declared Article Third of Julius Janowitz's will as invalid, unlawful, and ineffective for transferring real and personal property to the plaintiff and its co-trustee. As thus modified, the interlocutory decree was affirmed, with costs awarded to the defendant-appellant Emma S. Janowitz against the plaintiff-respondent. Justice Johnston authored the opinion, with Justices Lazansky, Hagarty, and Carswell concurring, while Justice Close dissented.

Will ContestInterlocutory DecreeDecree ModificationProperty TransferEstate LawAppellate DecisionArticle InvalidityTrust AgreementCosts AwardedJudicial Opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.J. Gallagher Co.

Michael Boyle, former president of R.J. Gallagher Company, was demoted to vice-president after a cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy. He and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued, alleging age and disability discrimination, denial of medical leave, and retaliation. The company counter-sued Boyle for breach of contract. The court found no statutory violations by the company regarding discrimination, medical leave, or retaliation. Additionally, an initial interlocutory judgment that found the company breached Boyle's employment contract was rescinded. The court concluded that Boyle's claims failed because his demotion was due to company performance, he was not replaced by substantially younger individuals, he was not disabled under the relevant acts, and he was not denied medical leave. The company's counter-suit was deemed not retaliatory. As a result, all claims by Boyle and the EEOC were denied, and the interlocutory decision on Gallagher's liability was reversed.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationMedical LeaveBreach of ContractRetaliationConstructive DischargeLeukemiaEmployment ContractExecutive Demotion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 2014-06-0062
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2015

King, Cynthia v. Letica Corporation

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an employee's interlocutory appeal as untimely. Cynthia King alleged work-related cumulative trauma, but her employer, Letica Corporation, denied benefits based on the treating physician's opinion that the condition was not work-related. The trial court upheld this denial, citing the employee's failure to rebut the statutory presumption. The employee's subsequent appeal was filed sixteen days after the trial court's order, exceeding the seven-business-day statutory limit for interlocutory appeals. Consequently, the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

timelinessinterlocutory appealworkers' compensationcumulative traumacarpal tunnel syndromemedical benefitstemporary disabilitycausationstatutory presumptionappeals board
References
3
Case No. 2014-04-0012
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Thompsen, Jason v. Concrete Solutions

This interlocutory appeal arises from a workers' compensation claim where Jason Thompsen, a concrete worker, sustained a fractured ankle. The employer, Concrete Solutions, disputed the claim, arguing Thompsen was an independent contractor. The trial court determined Thompsen was an employee entitled to medical benefits but not temporary disability benefits. On appeal, Concrete Solutions challenged the lack of an evidentiary hearing and the finding of an employer-employee relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that an evidentiary hearing was not mandatory for an interlocutory order and that sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Thompsen was an employee under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, thus entitling him to necessary medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorAnkle FractureMedical BenefitsInterlocutory AppealEvidentiary HearingDue ProcessRight to ControlStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. 2015-01-0012
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2015

Buchanan, Luther v. Carlex Glass Co.

This interlocutory appeal concerns employee Luther Buchanan's claim of a right knee injury sustained while changing a paint screen at work for Carlex Glass Co. The employer denied the claim, asserting the accident did not occur. The trial court initially granted medical benefits, concluding the employee presented sufficient evidence to likely prevail. However, the Appeals Board reviewed the record, including surveillance video and conflicting employee testimony regarding the incident's time and occurrence. The Board ultimately reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, finding the employee's testimony insufficient against the employer's uncontradicted evidence and therefore failed to meet the burden of proof for an injury by accident.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealBurden of ProofMedical BenefitsInjury by AccidentVideo SurveillanceCredibility of TestimonyAppeals Board DecisionReversed and RemandedTennessee Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1990

Massio v. Pergament Distributors, Inc.

This case involves a negligence action for personal injuries where the plaintiff fell in the defendants' store. The plaintiff sustained injuries after walking across a wooden platform because a main aisle was blocked by workers. A jury, following a bifurcated trial, found the plaintiff 45% at fault and the defendants 55% at fault in the accident's causation. The defendants appealed the interlocutory judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's case should have been dismissed as a matter of law due to unforeseeable conduct. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, determining it was foreseeable for the plaintiff to cross the platform and that her actions were neither reckless nor unforeseeable, thus properly submitted to the jury.

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityComparative NegligenceFault AllocationInterlocutory JudgmentAppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseJury Verdict
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kappel v. Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of Akron Wrecking Corp., sustained personal injuries during the demolition of the Zeigfeld Theatre when he fell after being struck by an object. He initiated a negligence action against the owner, Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp., and its subsidiary, Fibro Construction Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law § 241. Following a jury verdict against the defendants on the issue of liability, an interlocutory judgment was entered. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed both the main complaint and the third-party complaint. The appellate court concluded that an owner or general contractor is not liable under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 without control over the work, placing the responsibility for safety devices specific to a subcontractor's work on the subcontractor.

NegligencePersonal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after slipping on an ice patch on the steps of a building. The building was owned by Abbey Island Park, Inc., leased to Apex Transportation Corp., and subleased to All Car Movers, Ltd. Abbey Island Park, Inc. appealed an interlocutory judgment finding it liable, arguing insufficient evidence of its control over the premises or notice of the ice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury could rationally find the lessor retained control due to a lack of documentary evidence transferring maintenance duties and its own continued grass mowing. Furthermore, the court found the jury could reasonably infer the lessor had notice of the ice patch, which likely formed from a snowstorm six days prior to the accident, despite minor precipitation the day before.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallIce AccumulationLessor ControlConstructive NoticeJury Verdict SufficiencyAppellate AffirmationPersonal InjuryReal Property LawNassau County
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,229 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