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

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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Garti v. Salvation Army

The claimant alleged a work-related injury while moving a couch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence, allowing the case to proceed. The employer and its carrier appealed this interlocutory finding to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which refused review and imposed a penalty, citing 12 NYCRR 300.38 (g)(3)(i). The Board determined that findings of prima facie medical evidence are interlocutory and not reviewable at that stage. The employer then appealed to this Court, challenging the regulation and the penalty. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, concurring that the WCLJ's finding of prima facie medical evidence is an interlocutory decision and not immediately appealable, affirming the Board's interpretation of the regulation and deeming the challenge to the penalty premature.

Workers' Compensation LawPrima Facie Medical EvidenceInterlocutory DecisionAppeal DismissalRegulatory ComplianceNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeCausal RelationshipPenalty for Delay
References
7
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. 2017-05-0869
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2019

Ailshie, Darrell v. TN Farm Bureau Federation

In this interlocutory appeal, employee Darrell Ailshie alleged head and neck injuries from a work accident, leading to a neurologist's opinion on permanent impairment. Employer TN Farm Bureau Federation sought to exclude parts of this testimony, arguing non-compliance with Tennessee Rules of Evidence 702 and 703. The trial court denied the motion, finding the doctor's opinions admissible. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the doctor's self-taught knowledge of the AMA Guides and inability to recall specific grade modifiers did not render her expert opinion inadmissible under the relevant statutes and rules.

Workers' CompensationMedical ImpairmentExpert WitnessAdmissibility of EvidenceNeurologyTraumatic Brain InjuryCervical InjuryAMA GuidesAbuse of DiscretionMotion in Limine
References
5
Case No. 03-99-00766-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2000

Henry Schein, Inc. Easy Dental Systems, Inc. And Dentisoft, Inc. v. Shelly E. Stromboe, D.D.S. Alan B. Helig, D.D.S. Bart Presti, D.D.S. Kelly Presti And Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S. on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order certifying a class action against Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc., and Dentisoft, Inc. The appellees, a group of dentists, allege defects in dental office management software, misrepresentations about technical support, and unsolicited software billing. The appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class due to failures to satisfy prerequisites under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that common issues predominated over individual issues, and the class representatives met typicality and adequacy requirements, and Texas law was properly applied.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealSoftware DefectsBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActPromissory EstoppelClass CertificationPredominance of Common Issues
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IAC, LTD. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning a temporary injunction granted against appellants for using trade secrets related to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.'s helicopter blades. Appellants, including Van Horn Aviation, L.L.C. and IAC, Ltd., were developing a replacement blade using Bell's proprietary data and a Depot Maintenance Work Report (DMWR) for a similar helicopter model. Bell sued for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Bell established a probable right to recover on its trade secret claim and demonstrated irreparable harm. The court also addressed appellants' complaints regarding the injunction's vagueness, witness exclusion, and bond amount, overruling all contentions.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationIntellectual PropertyHelicopter BladesProprietary InformationAbuse of DiscretionIrreparable HarmConfidentiality AgreementCivil Procedure
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roller v. Lehigh Portland Cement Co.

The court granted a motion to dismiss an appeal, finding the board's decision to deny applications to reopen three cases and restore two active cases to the referee calendar to be interlocutory and thus not appealable under Workers’ Compensation Law, § 23. The court also noted that the board's decision did not preclude the parties from litigating the effect of previous injuries on the claimant’s overall disability in the active cases. Furthermore, the decision appealed from can be reviewed later on an appeal from a final decision of the board.

appeal dismissalinterlocutory decisionworkers' compensation lawreopening casesreferee calendarappealabilityfinal decision reviewclaimant disabilityprocedural lawjudicial panel decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Life Insurance Co. of Southwest v. Brister

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class, represented by M.C. Brister, Jr., comprises employees of Texas Steel Company who received workers' compensation benefits but were allegedly denied disability benefits under an Employee Benefit Plan issued by Life Insurance Company of the Southwest. The claims involved breach of contract and misrepresentation. Appellants contended that the class did not meet the requirements for certification under TEX.R.CIV.P. 42(b) and that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding a prior federal class action settlement. The appellate court affirmed the class certification, finding that common issues, primarily the interpretation of the Employee Benefit Plan and alleged statutory violations, predominated over individual issues, making a class action superior. While acknowledging the error in excluding evidence of the federal lawsuit, the court determined it was not a reversible error as it did not contribute to an improper judgment.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsBreach of ContractMisrepresentationEmployee Benefit PlanTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade PracticesRule 42
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 21,559 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