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. DC-10-00010; DC-10-04225
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez ex rel. Reyes v. Trujillo

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion to remand two state court actions (DC-10-00010 and DC-10-04225) related to a work-related death, which were removed to federal court by Defendant Arch Aluminum & Glass Co., Inc. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Case No. DC-10-04225 due to a lack of complete diversity, as a Texas defendant, Pro-Crate & Assembly, LLC, remained in that action. Regarding Case No. DC-10-00010, the court found the removal was untimely, occurring more than one year after commencement, and rejected the argument for equitable tolling of the removal deadline despite an intervening bankruptcy stay. The court highlighted Arch Aluminum's active participation in state court proceedings for several months prior to providing notice of bankruptcy. Consequently, the court granted the Plaintiffs' and Intervenor's motion, remanding both cases to the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Remand OrderSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity of CitizenshipRemoval ProcedureEquitable TollingBankruptcy Automatic StayTimeliness LimitationsNonsuit of PartiesWork-Related AccidentWrongful Death Claim
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Soodoo v. LC, LLC

This case involves an appeal by defendants LC, LLC, and Limrink Realty Corp. against an order dismissing their cross-claims for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract against co-defendant Atlantic Contracting of New York, Inc. The original action was brought by an unnamed plaintiff for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted Atlantic's motion to dismiss the cross-claims. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the cross-claims stated cognizable causes of action. Consequently, the cross-claims were denied dismissal and converted into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction SiteCross-claimsContributionIndemnificationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate DivisionThird-Party Action
References
16
Case No. 10-10-00356-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2011

Bradley Evans v. Charles O. Hendrix

This case originated from a dispute over damages when a tractor-trailer driven by Charles O. Hendrix collided with a cow allegedly owned by Bradley Evans. Hendrix sued Evans, claiming negligence in the supervision and control of his cattle, leading to damages to his truck and lost wages. The trial court found in favor of Hendrix, awarding him $10,000. Evans appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for a statutory claim and any common-law duty breach. The appellate court determined that Hendrix failed to prove Evans knowingly permitted his cattle to roam unattended on a highway, a crucial element under Texas Agriculture Code Ann. § 143.102, and noted that Texas generally lacks a common-law duty to restrain livestock without specific stock laws. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that Hendrix take nothing.

LivestockAnimal ControlNegligenceDamagesTexas LawAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFencesRight-of-WayProperty Law
References
19
Case No. 2021-08-0819
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Thomas, Donald v. 10 Roads Express, LLC

The employee, Donald D. Thomas, a delivery driver, reported what he believed to be a left great toe sprain sustained while pushing a clutch pedal at work. The employer, 10 Roads Express, LLC, provided a medical panel, and the selected physician diagnosed the employee with gout, stating it was not work-related. Consequently, the employer denied the claim, leading Thomas to file a petition for benefit determination. The trial court subsequently granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, noting Thomas's failure to respond to the motion and the denial of his request for an extension of time. The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision, additionally finding the employee's appeal to be frivolous, though it declined to award attorneys' fees and costs to the employer.

Summary Judgment GrantFrivolous Appeal FindingMedical Causation DisputeGout DiagnosisDelivery Driver InjuryProcedural Non-ComplianceAppellate AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee Self-RepresentationLack of Response to Motion
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. LAO 854258
Regular
Aug 24, 2007

BERTHA MACIAS vs. CUSTOM DESIGN, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant's cumulative injury claim was not barred by the post-termination provisions of Labor Code § 3600(a)(10). This decision was based on the exception in § 3600(a)(10)(D), which states that a claim is valid if the date of injury, as defined by the date of disability and knowledge of its industrial cause, occurred after the notice of termination.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryUpper ExtremitiesLower ExtremitiesSpinePsychePost-Termination DefenseLabor Code § 3600(a)(10)(D)Date of InjurySection 5412
References
3
Case No. ADJ3358392
Regular
Oct 04, 2011

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. KERN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Permissibly Self-Insured, AIMS

This case involves a deputy sheriff's claim for a left knee injury sustained in August 2005. The defendant employer argued the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) due to a post-termination filing and insufficient evidence. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's findings, ruling the employer had actual notice of the injury prior to termination, satisfying an exception to section 3600(a)(10)(A). Therefore, the claim was deemed compensable and not barred by the post-termination defense.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injurydeputy sheriffKern County Sheriff's DepartmentLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensenotice of injurySergeant Goodingqualified medical evaluatorThor Gjerdrum M.D.
References
3
Case No. ADJ9908298
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

ELIZABETH SOTO vs. MOLEX, INC. dba AFFINITY MEDICAL, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify a previous order, rescinding the original Findings and Order. The defendant argued the claim was barred by the post-termination defense, but the WCAB found exceptions applied under Labor Code sections 3600(a)(10)(A) and 3600(a)(10)(D). The WCAB determined the date of injury was March 5, 2015, subsequent to the termination notice, and returned the case for further proceedings to develop the medical record regarding the extent of the applicant's injuries.

post-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D)Labor Code section 5412cumulative traumacompensable disabilityknowledge of industrial causationdate of injurynotice of terminationU.S. HealthWorks
References
7
Case No. ADJ6757162
Regular
Dec 14, 2016

JOSEPH BRABANDER vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns defendant Cedars-Sinai's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation finding. The administrative law judge found the applicant's cumulative trauma claim, filed after his layoff notice, was not barred by the statute of limitations or Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the applicant's date of injury, determined by when he suffered disability and knew it was work-related, occurred after his layoff notice. Therefore, exception (D) to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) applied.

cumulative traumaStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimspreponderance of the evidencenotice of terminationlayoffknowledge of injurydisabilityoccupational diseases
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,753 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