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. 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
Aug 10, 1993

Gramigna v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

A bricklayer, referred to as 'Plaintiff,' was injured on a scaffold at a work site owned by defendant Keio Gijuku, where defendant Joint Venture was the general contractor. A plank on the scaffold broke, causing the plaintiff to become lodged against a wall. The IAS court granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §240(1). On appeal, Joint Venture argued there was no statutory violation because the plaintiff did not fall to the ground. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the incident involved an elevation-related risk. However, due to the plaintiff's pre-existing hip condition, the court modified the original order to grant Joint Venture's request for further discovery, while otherwise affirming the summary judgment on liability.

scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)elevation risksummary judgmentliabilitypre-existing conditionfurther discoveryconstruction accidenthip injuryappellate review
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

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Budd Van Ness Partnership v. Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture

A joint venture, Plaintiff/Appellee Major-Gladys Drive Joint Venture, sued Defendant/Appellant The White Budd Van Ness Partnership, an architectural firm, for damages stemming from their alleged failure to properly investigate and advise on the use of 'C-Tile' in a shopping center construction. The 'C-Tile' proved unsuitable and had to be replaced. The jury found the architects liable for deceptive trade practices, including misrepresentations and unconscionable actions, as well as negligence and breach of contract. The trial court entered a judgment of $498,157.40 plus attorney's fees against the architects. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) to professional architectural services and extended the implied warranty of good and workmanlike performance to such services. The appellate court overruled various points of error raised by the architects, including issues related to a 'Mary Carter' settlement agreement with a co-defendant contractor. The judgment was reformed to disallow a $41,000.00 credit granted to the architects and, as reformed, was affirmed.

Architect MalpracticeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Professional Services LiabilityImplied WarrantyUnconscionable ActionNegligenceBreach of ContractConstruction DefectsC-Tile FailureExpert Testimony
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 5,785 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