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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00261
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2023

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

William Arias, a demolition worker, suffered injuries after falling 10-15 feet from a roof while cutting wooden beams. Despite his safety harness and lanyard catching him, he hit his head and sustained shoulder and back injuries. The incident occurred during demolition work for 139 East 56th Street Landlord, LLC (building owner) and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC (general contractor). Arias's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's order, finding that the safety devices were inadequate to prevent injuries from the force of gravity, thereby granting Arias's motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Gravity-related harmSafety devices inadequateFall from heightDemolition workSummary judgmentAppellate reviewConstruction accidentPersonal injuryBuilding owner liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves a landlord (plaintiff) who faced two arrests in 2006 based on allegedly false police reports filed by her tenant, Karlene White, stemming from a landlord-tenant dispute. The plaintiff subsequently sued White, several police officers, an assistant district attorney, and the City of New York for federal and state law claims including false arrest, malicious prosecution, and battery. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Claims for false arrest against Officers Ostrowski and Galli, malicious prosecution against Officer Ostrowski, and battery against Ostrowski and Galli (all in their individual capacities) survived summary judgment. Additionally, state law claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and battery against the City of New York under respondeat superior liability were also denied summary judgment. All other claims, including those related to a November arrest, claims against other named defendants, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, were dismissed.

false arrestmalicious prosecutioncivil rightspolice misconductprobable causequalified immunitymunicipal liabilityrespondeat superiorbatterylandlord-tenant dispute
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal stemming from a landlord-tenant dispute between William and Yuko Colthurst (landlords) and Tim and Stephanie Williams (tenants). The landlords sued the tenants for unpaid rent and property damage after the tenants vacated their leased home early following a sexual assault on Mrs. Williams. The tenants counterclaimed for wrongful withholding of their security deposit and premises liability, alleging the landlords failed to provide proper security devices. The trial court ruled largely in favor of the landlords, granting partial summary judgment on unpaid rent, a directed verdict on premises liability, and jury findings on property damage and security deposit claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues, including the award of attorney's fees to the landlords and sanctions against the tenants' counsel.

Landlord-TenantLease DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictAttorney Fees
References
47
Case No. 11-06-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appeal stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. The landlords (Colthurst) initially sued the tenants (Williams) for unpaid rent and property damage. The tenants counterclaimed, alleging wrongful withholding of their security deposit and a premises liability claim after Mrs. Williams was sexually assaulted in the leased home. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the landlords on the unpaid rent claim and a directed verdict on the premises liability claim, with the jury ruling in favor of the landlords on the remaining issues. On appeal, the tenants challenged multiple aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the summary judgment, the directed verdict, and the jury's findings regarding the security deposit and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the handling of the various claims and upholding sanctions against the tenants' counsel for an intrinsic fraud allegation.

Landlord-Tenant DisputeUnpaid RentProperty DamageSecurity DepositPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesPrejudgment Interest
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1990

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This is an appeal in a worker's compensation case. The plaintiff, Lucille Fullenwider, alleged she developed industrial asthma while working for Motorola, Inc., leading to total and permanent incapacity. The jury found she did not suffer an occupational injury, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in permitting two undisclosed expert witnesses to testify when interrogatories requesting their names were not supplemented thirty days prior to trial. The appellate court concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony without a finding of good cause, the error was harmless as the plaintiff was not prejudiced, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesGood Cause ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionHarmful ErrorWorker's CompensationIndustrial AsthmaOccupational InjuryUndisclosed Witnesses
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Archie Capps appealed a take-nothing judgment, arguing that American Mutual Liability Insurance Company improperly deducted both worker's compensation and social security benefits from his disability insurance payments. Capps, disabled in 1972, received disability policy payments from 1973 and a lump-sum worker's compensation settlement in 1974, which included attorney's fees. He also received monthly social security benefits. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the insurance policy's anti-duplication clause permitted the deduction of both worker's compensation and social security payments. Furthermore, the court found that attorney's fees awarded in the worker's compensation case were part of the total amounts payable and were properly deducted, and that the calculation of payments was correct.

AppealDisability InsuranceWorker's CompensationSocial Security BenefitsAnti-duplication ClauseAttorney's FeesLump-sum SettlementBenefit DeductionsPolicy InterpretationInsurance Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,244 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