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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 20-0552
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2022

S.C. v. M.B., Individually and as Next Friend of I.C.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case concerning the division of community property not addressed in a final divorce decree. The core issue was whether Family Code Subchapter C, enacted in 1987, replaced the traditional Property Code partition remedy and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the original divorce court. The Court held that Subchapter C provides an additional remedy, allowing for a "just and right" division post-divorce, but does not eliminate the existing partition action or impose exclusive jurisdiction on the original divorce court. This means former spouses can still pursue a Property Code partition, but if either spouse invokes Subchapter C, the "just and right" standard must be applied by any court with jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that the legislature did not intend to abolish common-law rights or impose jurisdictional restrictions without clear language.

Post-divorce property divisionCommunity propertyTenants in commonExclusive remedyExclusive jurisdictionStatutory constructionProperty Code partitionFamily CodeJust and right standardFinal divorce decree
References
77
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07819 [166 AD3d 1276]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Matter of Kowalik (Commissioner of Labor)

Mandi C. Kowalik appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to her failure to file a valid original claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Kowalik did not earn any wages during the required base periods for her claim, which was effective July 3, 2017. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that would qualify her for an extension of the base period under Labor Law § 527 (3). The court emphasized that remuneration is deemed earned on the date of payment and dismissed her due process argument.

Unemployment InsuranceClaim EligibilityBase PeriodValid Original ClaimLabor LawAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentAffirmed DecisionPro SeRemuneration
References
7
Case No. 2015-1078 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2017

Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case involves Bronx Acupuncture Therapy, P.C., as assignee of Niurka Mejia, appealing an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County. The defendant, Hereford Ins. Co., had moved for summary judgment, arguing full payment according to workers' compensation fee schedules. The Civil Court granted the motion, dismissing claims for services billed under codes 97039 (unlisted modality) and 99199 (unlisted special service). The Appellate Term reversed this decision, finding that the defendant failed to request additional verification within 15 business days for these "By Report" designated codes, as required by 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 (b). Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate TermWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleUnlisted Medical CodesVerification of ClaimsMoxibustionAcupressureInsurance DisputeHealthcare Provider Reimbursement
References
2
Case No. 08-10-00328-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilar

Ray Aguilar, a former employee, sued Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network, L.L.C. for wrongful termination under the Texas Labor Code Chapter 451, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury found in Aguilar's favor, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the jury's findings regarding the employer's failure to uniformly enforce its absence control policy, the presence of retaliatory discharge, and constructive termination. However, the court reversed the award of exemplary damages, concluding there was insufficient evidence of actual malice.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyConstructive TerminationExemplary DamagesTexas Labor CodeFMLAJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service L.L.C. v. Ray Aguilar

Ray Aguilar sued his employers, Echostar Satellite L.L.C. and Dish Network Service, L.L.C., for wrongful termination in violation of the Texas Labor Code Chapter 451, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after a workplace injury. Aguilar claimed a hostile work environment, denial of a pay raise, and being pressured into unpaid FMLA leave, leading to his termination for 'job abandonment' without proper notice. A jury found in Aguilar's favor, awarding actual and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of retaliation and constructive discharge, concluding there was sufficient evidence that the employers failed to uniformly enforce their absence control policy and showed a causal link between the claim and termination. However, the court reversed the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence of actual malice.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyConstructive TerminationFamily Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Exemplary DamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 14,336 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