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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. No. 02-10-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Chesser v. LIFECARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Curtis Chesser, through his spouse and power of attorney Ava Chesser, sued LifeCare Management Services (LMS) and LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas (Hospital) for health care liability. After Chesser suffered a mild stroke, he was transferred to Hospital where a PEG tube was surgically inserted. The tube's bolster was too tight, leading to severe pain, tissue necrosis, hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, cerebral injury, and permanent cognitive deficits. A jury found for Chesser. The Court of Appeals sustained Chesser's issue that no evidence supported the negligence of three settling doctors, modifying the judgment to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit of $183,000. It also sustained Appellees' challenge to the jury's joint enterprise finding, removing joint and several liability for LMS and making it severally liable for 30% of the judgment. Furthermore, the court modified the judgment to impose several liability on Hospital and LMS for their respective $250,000 noneconomic damage awards, affirming the trial court's judgment as modified.

Health Care LiabilityMedical NegligencePEG Tube ProcedureJoint EnterpriseVicarious LiabilityComparative ResponsibilitySettlement CreditNoneconomic DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory Caps
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture

Dalia H. Lawler, a hotel maid supervisor, sustained injuries when a ceiling collapsed, leading her to file for workers' compensation and receive benefits. Subsequently, she sued her employer, Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture, and its members, Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, along with Commerce Garage Joint Venture, for negligence under premises liability. The defendants were granted summary judgment, asserting immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Lawler challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the joint venture and its members were not all her employers. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that individual members of a joint venture are considered employers for workers' compensation purposes, thus barring Lawler's separate negligence claim.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentJoint VentureEmployer ImmunityExclusive RemedyNegligenceTexas Civil ProcedureAffidavit CompetencyAgency Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Meadowlakes Development Corp.

The dissenting judges argue against the majority's interpretation of CPLR Article 16, particularly regarding the limitation of liability for indemnification claims. They contend that a party found 50% or less at fault, such as third-party defendant Home Insulation and Supply, Inc., should have its indemnification liability limited to its proportionate share. The dissent asserts that the legislative intent of Article 16 was to protect low-fault defendants from disproportionate liability, a purpose contradicted by the majority's ruling that upholds joint and several liability for indemnitors irrespective of their fault percentage. The dissenting opinion highlights that applying joint and several liability in this case would unfairly hold Home, found only 10% at fault, liable for 100% of the loss. Consequently, the judges would modify the original order and judgment to limit Home's indemnification liability to 10% of the amount paid by Meadowlakes.

CPLR Article 16Joint and Several LiabilityIndemnificationProportionate LiabilityLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Third-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionCommon-Law Indemnification
References
15
Case No. ADJ 4359672 (VNO 0478019)
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

JORGE OROZCO vs. MARRIOTT DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES/INTERSTATE HOTELS AND RESORTS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, CENTURY PLAZA HOTEL

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an insolvent insurer's obligations under a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant settled a cumulative trauma injury claim, and the settlement agreement apportioned liability for remaining lien claims among insurers, including American Protection Company. After American Protection Company became insolvent, CIGA stepped in, but sought dismissal, arguing its liability was not joint and several and no "other insurance" existed. The Board affirmed the dismissal of CIGA, holding that the original joint and several nature of the insurers' liability, as established by case law and the settlement, means Zurich North America's remaining liability constitutes "other insurance" relieving CIGA.

CIGAAmerican Protection Insurance CompanyMarriott Downtown Los AngelesInterstate Hotels and ResortsZurich North AmericaCentury Plaza HotelBroadspireSedgwick Claims Management ServicesCompromise and Release Agreementcumulative trauma
References
4
Case No. 87 CV 0450
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 1990

In Re Joint Southern & Eastern Dist. Asbestos Lit.

Plaintiff Anna Gallin moved to set aside a jury verdict in an asbestos litigation case against defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc. The motion followed a trial where the jury allocated percentages of liability among the remaining defendant and several settling co-defendants, including Eagle-Picher and Keene Corporation, for wrongful death and product liability claims. Plaintiff challenged these allocations, arguing a lack of sufficient evidence under New York law. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, presided over by Judge McLaughlin, reviewed the evidence and, applying a strict standard for disturbing jury verdicts, found enough support for the jury's findings regarding the liability percentages. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict.

Asbestos LitigationJury VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictNew York General Obligations LawLiability AllocationSettling Co-defendantsWrongful Death ClaimProduct LiabilityComparative FaultEvidence Sufficiency
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ayers v. Hakes

Claimant, a horse groom for Gordon Hakes' business, Painted Post Car Mart, developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working at Larry Hakes' farm. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Utica Mutual Insurance Company's policy, covering automotive work, did not cover the claimant's farm-related injury. The Board also found Gordon Hakes and Larry Hakes jointly and severally liable as uninsured employers due to a dual employment relationship. This appeal affirmed the Board's findings on policy coverage and dual employment but reversed the imposition of joint and several liability, remitting the matter to determine if a joint venture existed and, if not, to apportion liability between the Hakeses.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeInsurance Policy CoverageEmployer LiabilityDual EmploymentJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemand for Further ProceedingsHorse Grooming InjuryPolicy Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 587-14
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2018

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. 21st Century Constr. Corp.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) initiated a collection action against former members of the ELITE Contractors Trust of New York (ELITE), a group self-insured trust. The WCB sought partial summary judgment on the issue of joint and several liability for the trust's deficit, default judgments against non-appearing defendants, and discontinuance against settling defendants. Defendants raised various arguments, including the trust's alleged invalid formation, claims of unconstitutional taking, expiration of the statute of limitations, and untimely deficit assessments. The court ultimately granted the WCB's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against most defendants, affirmed the contractual and statutory basis for joint and several liability, and granted default judgments against non-appearing parties. Most of the defendants' cross-motions seeking dismissal were denied, with one exception regarding a dissolved LLC for which discovery was deemed necessary.

Workers' Compensation TrustJoint and Several LiabilityDeficit AssessmentGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Summary JudgmentDefault JudgmentStatute of LimitationsUnconstitutional TakingTrust AdministrationEmployer Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2000

St. Joseph Hospital v. Wolff

This case concerns the vicarious liability of St. Joseph Hospital, a teaching hospital, for the alleged negligence of Dr. Mario Villafani, a resident in its sponsored medical residency program. Stacy Wolff suffered severe brain damage after a tracheostomy performed by Villafani at Brackenridge Hospital. The Wolffs sued St. Joseph, alleging various theories of vicarious liability including employment, joint enterprise, joint venture, "mission," and ratification. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on joint enterprise, joint venture, ratification, and "mission" liability. The Court also concluded that Villafani was acting as the borrowed employee of the Central Texas Medical Foundation (Foundation) as a matter of law, meaning St. Joseph was not vicariously liable for his actions.

Vicarious LiabilityJoint EnterpriseJoint VentureRespondeat SuperiorBorrowed EmployeeMedical MalpracticeResidency ProgramTeaching HospitalPhysician NegligenceHospital Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc.

This case addresses motor carrier liability, specifically whether a licensed motor carrier leasing equipment is vicariously liable for the negligence of the equipment driver under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Plaintiff Grant Morris was injured in an accident involving a tractor-trailer driven by an intoxicated Jerry Lee Largent. Morris sued JTM Materials, Inc. and DCV, Inc. (JTM), alleging vicarious liability, respondeat superior, direct liability for negligence, joint enterprise, and joint venture. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to JTM on several claims. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in part, ruling that an interstate motor carrier is vicariously liable under FMCSR for a driver's negligence and finding material fact issues regarding negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and entrustment claims. Conversely, the court affirmed the summary judgment for JTM on Morris's claims related to respondeat superior, civil conspiracy, joint venture, and joint enterprise, ultimately affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Motor Carrier LiabilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent HiringNegligent EntrustmentRespondeat SuperiorFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsEquipment Lease AgreementStatutory EmployeeSummary Judgment ReviewProximate Cause
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 8,159 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