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. 2014-05-0003
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2014

Jewell, Kevin v. Cobble Construction and Arcus Restoration

Kevin Jewell, an employee, filed for an expedited hearing seeking temporary disability and medical benefits after injuring his back while working for Cobble Construction, a subcontractor of Arcus Restoration. Cobble Construction denied the claim, asserting Jewell was an independent contractor and his injury was outside the scope of employment. The court found Jewell to be an employee and that his injury occurred within the scope of his work. Consequently, the court granted Jewell's request, ordering Arcus Restoration, as the principal contractor, to provide medical treatment and pay temporary total disability benefits.

Employee Status DeterminationIndependent Contractor vs. EmployeeScope of EmploymentBack Injury ClaimTemporary Total DisabilityMedical Benefits AwardSubcontractor LiabilityTennessee Workers' Compensation LawExpedited Hearing ProcedureLumbar Radiculopathy Diagnosis
References
5
Case No. 09-03-360 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2004

Mason Construction, Inc. v. Kevin Robertson D/B/A Bayou Drilling

Kevin Robertson d/b/a Bayou Drilling sued Mason Construction, Inc. for breach of contract related to drilling under-reams. A jury found Mason breached the contract and awarded Bayou damages. On appeal, Mason challenged the damages award and the trial court's refusal to submit instructions on the affirmative defenses of waiver and payment. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally sufficient for damages but held that the trial court erred in refusing the waiver instruction, which was a controlling fact issue. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Contract LawBreach of ContractDamagesWaiverJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractLost ProfitsRemand
References
21
Case No. 04-11-00402-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

City of San Antonio, and Its Agent, San Antonio Water System v. Albert Kevin Martin, A/K/A Kevin Martin

Albert Kevin Martin filed a whistleblower action against his former employer, San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and the City of San Antonio, alleging constructive discharge after reporting asbestos pipe disposal concerns to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). A jury initially found in Martin's favor, but SAWS appealed, disputing the causal link between Martin's report and his constructive discharge, and challenging the compensatory damages award. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of causation, concluding that SAWS's adverse actions were linked to Martin's whistleblowing, despite SAWS's alternative explanations. However, the court determined there was legally insufficient evidence to support the jury's award for past and future compensatory damages, particularly regarding mental anguish and chest pains, as the evidence presented did not meet the required legal standards for establishing such damages. Consequently, the appellate judgment was "AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED," deleting all references to compensatory damages from the trial court's judgment.

WhistleblowerConstructive DischargeRetaliationAsbestosEnvironmental ComplaintTCEQCausationCompensatory DamagesMental AnguishLegal Sufficiency
References
19
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. ADJ8766821
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

PARAMJIT KAINTH vs. KEVIN'S PAINTING AND CONSTRUCTION, a partnership, KEVIN SINGH aka KULDIP SINGH, SEE SINGH, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves defendants Kevin's Painting and Construction and Kevin Singh seeking reconsideration of a prior dismissal of their petition. The Board dismissed the current petition as an impermissible successive filing. Previously, their initial petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 13 days late, and they failed to diligently order transcripts needed for their appeal. Even if not successive, the current petition would be denied on its merits for the same reasons of untimeliness and lack of diligence.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTranscript request delayDiligenceLabor Code § 5903California Code of Regulations § 10859Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Case No. 04-17-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

David Mora, Texas Sterling Construction Co. A/K/A Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. A/K/A Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc. v. Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, Both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit where two construction workers were injured and one killed when an unsecured toolbox fell from their foreman's trailer. The plaintiffs, Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, sued the foreman David Mora and employers Texas Sterling Construction Co. and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found the driver of the third vehicle not negligent and Texas Sterling grossly negligent, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions on the course and scope of employment, the defense of sudden emergency, and gross negligence attributable to Texas Sterling through its Corporate Safety Director, José González.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentSudden Emergency DefenseEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesLegal Sufficiency
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 3,875 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