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

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. CA-3-6982-G, CA-3-7949-G
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1980

Vuyanich v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas

This class action lawsuit alleges race and sex discrimination by Republic National Bank of Dallas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court established liability for compensation discrimination against black employees (exempt and nonexempt) from 1973. It also found liability for initial placement and promotion discrimination against black and female nonexempt employees (all years) and black exempt employees (from 1973). For hiring, a prima facie case was found for black nonexempt applicants (1969-1973) and female exempt applicants (through 1974). Additionally, liability was established for certain discriminatory maternity leave policies affecting females prior to 1971. Claims regarding female exempt compensation, female exempt initial placement/promotion, termination practices, marriage policies, and dress codes were denied.

employment discriminationTitle VIIclass actionrace discriminationsex discriminationwage discriminationcompensation discriminationinitial placement discriminationpromotion discriminationhiring discrimination
References
143
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

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

Crawley v. Hamilton County

Noel Crawley, a corrections officer for the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, sustained injuries at work and received compensation under Hamilton County's Civil Service Policy, which purported to be an exclusive remedy. Crawley subsequently filed a negligence suit against Hamilton County under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Hamilton County argued its policy exempted it from GTLA liability, but the trial court initially granted summary judgment in its favor. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating that the county could not exempt itself from tort liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that a county not opted into workers' compensation statutes cannot use an internal policy to avoid GTLA liability for work-related injuries, as such policies are void against public policy.

Governmental Tort Liability ActExclusive RemedyWorkers' Compensation Opt-OutCounty LiabilityOn-the-Job InjuryCivil Service PolicySovereign ImmunityPublic PolicyNegligence LawTennessee Supreme Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amerogen v. Donnini

The case concerns a plaintiff injured after falling from a porch roof while working for defendants Samuel and Marsini Donnini, who owned the property. The property was a four-bedroom house continuously rented to college students, used solely for commercial gain. The core legal question is whether the defendants are exempt from the strict liability provisions of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, which typically exempt "owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work." The Appellate Division initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding they were exempt. However, the higher court reversed this decision, asserting that the exemption does not apply to homeowners who use their premises entirely and solely for commercial purposes, like a rooming house, as such owners are not considered to lack the sophistication or business acumen to understand and insure against statutory liabilities. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Worker InjuryStrict LiabilityLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Homeowner ExemptionCommercial DwellingRental PropertyStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentAppellate Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bostic v. Dalton

Jackie Bostic, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured during the construction of a residence owned by Delicia Dalton. Delicia's father, Paul Dalton, supervised the construction without compensation and hired Bostic's immediate employer, Michael Evans, owner of Ocoee Construction Company. Bostic filed a workers' compensation action against Paul and Delicia Dalton. The trial court and Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found both Delicia and Paul Dalton exempt from liability under the owner's exemption of Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113(f)(1). The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted full Court review and affirmed the judgment, holding that an uncompensated agent of an owner also falls within the owner's exemption, thereby shielding Paul Dalton from workers' compensation liability.

Workers' CompensationAgency LawConstruction IndustryOwner ExemptionStatutory InterpretationUncompensated AgentSubcontractor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewWorker Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenman v. Page

Plaintiff George H. Greenman sustained injuries after falling from a roof while performing construction work on defendants' property. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by the Supreme Court, Genesee County. The appellate court modified this order by denying defendants' cross-motion in part, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action, and granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) did not apply to defendant John Page, a developer who rehabilitates homes for resale, despite his residence in one of the apartments of the two-family dwelling where the incident occurred. The court clarified that the exemption only extends as far as its language fairly warrants, resolving doubts in favor of the general provision. A dissenting opinion argued that the homeowner exemption should apply due to the mixed residential and commercial use of the dwelling, adhering to the principle that owners contracting work directly related to residential use, even with a commercial purpose, are shielded.

Labor LawHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentRoof FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeveloper LiabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace SafetyResidential Property
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

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
Showing 1-10 of 5,811 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