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. 161063/19, 5782, 2024-06151
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2026

Contreras v. City of New York

Plaintiff Roger J. Contreras was injured by a falling chisel during a coffee break at a construction site in New York. He sued the City of New York and others under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim but allowed amendment of his bill of particulars to include Industrial Code violations. It also dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Contreras's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, asserting that a worker on break is still protected and that the defective scaffolding was inadequate, regardless of the exact cause or origin of the falling object. The court found that the arguments related to common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims were academic due to the grant of summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1).

Falling ObjectScaffolding DefectLabor Law § 240(1) ClaimSummary Judgment GrantConstruction Site InjuryCoffee Break AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationsAppellate Division DecisionWorker SafetyNegligence Dismissal
References
5
Case No. 14-23-00425-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

BRCC Enterprises LLC v. Jesse Skie

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's judgment concerning a breach of oral contract. Jesse Skie had sued BRCC Enterprises LLC for a $100,000 bonus related to a cannabis harvest in Oregon. The appellate court found the contract unenforceable due to illegality under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which prohibits marijuana cultivation even if authorized by state law. It rejected arguments that federal public policy on marijuana had shifted or that the nature of the requested remedy allowed enforcement. The court concluded that federal law prohibiting recreational marijuana manufacturing remains unchanged, thereby rendering the contract void.

Illegality DefenseBreach of Oral ContractCannabis CultivationFederal PreemptionControlled Substances ActTexas Contract LawPublic PolicyProsecutorial DiscretionPresidential PardonsRecreational Marijuana
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Extradition of Contreras

This Opinion and Order addresses an extradition request by the Republic of Mexico for its citizen, Jose Cruz Contreras, who was indicted in Mexico for weapons smuggling and amassing arms. The United States Government, acting as Petitioner on behalf of Mexico, submitted documentary evidence primarily consisting of eleven written confessions identifying Contreras as the weapon source. Contreras challenged these confessions, presenting evidence that they were obtained through coercion and torture, and were subsequently recanted in open court at their first judicial appearance. The Court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Mallet, deemed the recanting testimony admissible and more reliable than the original coerced statements. Finding insufficient evidence to establish probable cause without the untrustworthy confessions, the Court denied the extradition request and ordered Contreras's immediate release from custody.

ExtraditionProbable CauseRecantation TestimonyCoerced ConfessionsWeapons SmugglingAmassing ArmsInternational LawTreaty InterpretationDue ProcessJudicial Review
References
32
Case No. 11-13-00143-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2014

Jesse Pando v. Adaelia Quinonez, and Minor Daughter, S.Q.

Jesse Pando appealed a default judgment for $25,000 granted to Adaelia Quinonez and her minor daughter, S.Q., stemming from tort claims including assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pando failed to answer the lawsuit, leading to the default judgment. His subsequent motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court. On appeal, Pando challenged the trial court's refusal to allow evidence and other procedural issues. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Pando had waived his appellate complaints due to inadequate briefing and, furthermore, failed to demonstrate that his failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent as required by the Craddock factors for setting aside a default judgment.

Default JudgmentAppealMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureInadequate BriefingWaiver of ClaimsCraddock FactorsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssault
References
12
Case No. 07-04-0362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2005

Jesse Bryan Smith and the Salvation Army v. Otis M. Scott

Jesse Bryan Smith and The Salvation Army appealed a jury verdict awarding Otis M. Scott damages for personal injuries from an automobile accident. Appellants contested the factual and legal sufficiency of evidence supporting awards for past and future loss of earning capacity. Scott, a self-employed builder, presented evidence of diminished income following a shoulder injury and surgery. The appellate court found sufficient probative evidence to support the jury's awards for both past and future lost earning capacity, considering medical testimony and Scott's income comparison. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of Earning CapacitySufficiency of EvidenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewDamagesRotator Cuff TearMedical TestimonyAffirmed Judgment
References
17
Case No. 213 AD3d 601
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Contreras v. Mall 1-Bay Plaza, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning claims for contribution and indemnification against a third-party defendant, Electrical Illuminations by Arnold Inc., by Mall 1-Bay Plaza, LLC, the third-party plaintiff. The claims arose from an injury sustained by the plaintiff, Julio Contreras. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding the claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court concluded that there was no allegation of a 'grave injury' and no written contract for indemnification or contribution was entered into prior to the accident with retroactive effect. Additionally, the claim for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance was also dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawIndemnification AgreementContribution ClaimsGrave InjuryRetroactive ContractBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. 01-22-00313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

Team Industrial Services, Inc. v. Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson

Kelli Most, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jesse Henson, sued Team Industrial Services, Inc. for wrongful death and survival claims after Henson died from severe burns sustained in a steam release at a Kansas power plant. Most alleged Team was negligent in servicing pressure relief valves. The jury found Team 90% negligent and Westar (Henson's employer) 10% negligent, awarding Most $222 million in damages. On appeal, Team challenged the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and its refusal to apply Kansas law, which has limits on non-economic damages and different joint and several liability rules. The appellate court found that Kansas law should have been applied for proportionate responsibility and wrongful death damages caps, and that the jury's non-economic damages award was excessive due to improper arguments. The court also determined that all forum non conveniens factors favored dismissal to Kansas, vacating the judgment and dismissing the case.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligence (Corporate)Forum Non ConveniensChoice of Law (Conflicts)Damages CapsComparative NegligenceExcessive DamagesAppellate Court DecisionIndustrial Safety
References
74
Case No. 08-18-00170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2019

Jesse Robles v. Mount Franklin Foods, L.L.C. D/B/A Azar Nut Company

Jesse Robles, a temporary worker sent by Southwest Staffing to Mount Franklin Food, L.L.C. (Azar Nut Company), was injured in an industrial accident caused by an Azar Nut employee. Robles received workers’ compensation benefits from Southwest Staffing's carrier and subsequently sued Azar Nut. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, treating it as a granted motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that under Texas Labor Code Section 93.004, Azar Nut, as the client company of a temporary employment service that carried workers’ compensation insurance covering Robles, was protected by the exclusive remedy defense, regardless of traditional employer definitions or contractual clauses.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary EmploymentClient CompanySummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentNegligence ClaimStatutory Interpretation
References
39
Case No. 2015-08-0016
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Castro-Contreras, Luis A. v. EMB Quality Masonry, Ovidio Juarez and Lucio Pena

This case concerns Luis Armado Castro-Contreras, who sought medical benefits for injuries sustained after falling from scaffolding on October 24, 2014. The central issue was identifying the responsible employer for providing medical benefits. The court determined that EMB Quality Masonry was Mr. Contreras' employer at the time of the injury, despite EMB's claims of subcontracting the work. The decision was based on evidence that Mr. Contreras was hired on-site by an EMB representative and worked under the direct supervision of EMB's quality control superintendent. Consequently, the court ordered EMB or its workers' compensation carrier to provide a panel of physicians for Mr. Contreras' reasonably necessary medical treatment. No ruling was made regarding temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingEmployer-Employee RelationshipScaffolding AccidentWorkplace InjuryInterpreter ServicesSubcontractor LiabilityTennessee LawMedical Treatment Order
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 114 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