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

Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Thomas

The appellant, H. B. Zachry Company, appealed a jury verdict that awarded the appellee workmen’s compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity. The appeal raised concerns about the trial court's decision not to grant a mistrial, specifically regarding the appellee's failure to timely disclose Dr. A. E. Minyard as an expert medical witness during discovery. The appellant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding of total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court concluded there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing Dr. Minyard's testimony, noting that the medical evidence was thoroughly developed and Dr. Minyard's findings primarily offered a different conclusion from existing medical reports. Furthermore, the court affirmed the jury's findings on total and permanent incapacity, the date of injury, and the good cause for the delayed filing of the claim, ultimately overruling all seventeen assignments of error. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationExpert Witness TestimonyDiscovery Rules ViolationRule 168 Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureTotal and Permanent IncapacitySufficiency of EvidenceJury MisconductAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident BoardMedical Testimony
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal regarding a jury's finding that plaintiff Pedro Pena was not a special employee of the defendant, following an accident resulting in personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, had previously set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the jury verdict, thereby upholding the jury's original finding. Additionally, the defendant's cross-appeal for judgment as a matter of law was denied. The court emphasized that determining a special employment relationship is a question of fact for the jury, with several factors to consider. Ultimately, costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, affirming the jury's initial determination.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury DamagesEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityQuestion of FactTrial Court ReversalCosts Awarded
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1949

United States v. Foster

Defendants indicted for conspiracy to overthrow the government challenged the jury selection process in the Southern District of New York. They alleged systematic exclusion of the poor, minorities, women, and political affiliates, arguing that property qualifications and low juror fees were unconstitutional. Judge Medina conducted a six-week trial, reviewing extensive evidence from 1940-1949 jury records and witness testimonies. The court found no deliberate, willful, or systematic discrimination, concluding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge overruled the challenge and denied all motions, emphasizing the broad discretion in jury selection and rejecting the concept of proportional representation for jury lists.

Jury selection challengeSystematic exclusionJury discriminationEconomic statusRacial minoritiesWomen's rightsPolitical affiliationGrand jury panelPetit jury venireConstitutional challenge
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1996

Gropper v. St. Luke's Hospital Center

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, a steamfitter, alleged injuries from a slip and fall at a construction site. The defense claimed the accident was feigned, particularly highlighting inconsistencies in workers' compensation accident reports regarding the date of injury. The trial court initially set aside a jury verdict favoring the defendants and ordered a new trial on liability and damages. However, the Supreme Court, New York County, reversed this decision, finding that references to workers' compensation during summation were permissible as the plaintiff had 'opened the door' to the issue. Consequently, the jury's original verdict in favor of the defendants was reinstated, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingSummation ArgumentInconsistent StatementsAccident ReportLiabilityDamages
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Applegate v. Home Indemnity Co.

Johnny Applegate appeals from a jury verdict in his workers' compensation claim for a low back injury sustained at Safeway in 1983. The jury found he was injured at work but failed to provide notice within 30 days. Applegate argued his delay was due to believing his injury was not job-related, but the jury determined this belief was not good cause under the prudent-person test. The court reviewed the legal standard for 'good cause' in workers' compensation cases, emphasizing that an employee's ignorance of the Act's provisions does not constitute good cause. The court found that a jury could reasonably infer a prudent person would have connected the injury to the job sooner and therefore affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryGood CausePrudent Person TestJury VerdictAppealLow Back InjurySpina BifidaMedical DiagnosisEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. 04-21-00420-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2023

Juliann Castro v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Christopher Jones

Juliann Castro appealed a jury verdict and take-nothing judgment in favor of Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Christopher Jones. The case stemmed from a motor vehicle accident where Castro alleged Jones's negligence caused her injuries. Castro challenged four evidentiary rulings related to expert testimony (Dr. Siddiqui, Dr. Gutzman, Dr. Sonnier), the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding of no causation, and the trial court's denial of her motion to equalize peremptory challenges. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the exclusion or limitation of expert testimony, no factual insufficiency in the jury's verdict, and no materially unfair trial regarding the peremptory challenges.

Motor Vehicle AccidentNegligenceProximate CauseEvidentiary RulingsExpert TestimonyCausation OpinionPeremptory ChallengesJury VerdictFactual SufficiencyDirected Verdict
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2009

Ramirez v. Willow Ridge Country Club, Inc.

This judgment affirms the dismissal of a complaint after a jury trial in New York County. The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at Willow Ridge Country Club, Inc., claimed he fell from a deck with a removed railing, while the foreman stated he fell from ladders while pulling a gutter. The jury found a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation but determined it was not the proximate cause, accepting the foreman's account. The appellate court upheld the verdict, addressing the plaintiff's challenges regarding jury instructions on attorney-client privilege and the preclusion of an unsigned deposition transcript under CPLR 3116. The court found no grounds to overturn the jury's decision or the trial court's rulings.

Demolition accidentJury verdictLabor Law violationProximate causeCPLR 3116Attorney-client privilegeAppellate affirmancePersonal injuryConstruction safetyWitness testimony
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,996 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