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

Microsoft Corp. v. Manning

This case is an appeal of a trial court's order granting class certification in a suit against Microsoft Corporation. The appellees, Mark Manning, Steve Collins, and Dana Schnitzer, sued Microsoft alleging breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection acts related to the faulty DoubleSpace disk compression feature in MS-DOS 6.0 software. They sought damages for the $9.95 upgrade cost to MS-DOS 6.2, which corrected the defect, rather than consequential damages for data loss. Microsoft appealed the class certification, citing issues such as an unrecognized liability theory, improper claim splitting, lack of commonality and typicality, inadequate class representation, and improper reliance on expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the class certification order, concluding that the purchase of a defective product, even without manifest data loss, constitutes sufficient injury, and that the class action met all the requirements under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42.

Class ActionSoftware Product LiabilityBreach of WarrantyUnjust EnrichmentConsumer ProtectionMS-DOS 6.0DoubleSpaceMicrosoft CorporationClass Certification AppealTexas Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1993

Meadows v. State University of New York at Oswego

Plaintiffs Ms. Meadows and Ms. Smouse, employees at SUNY Oswego, sought a preliminary injunction against the university and several individuals, alleging harassment and retaliation. Their claims stemmed from perceived involvement in a Title IX complaint, which they contended led to Ms. Smouse's non-renewal and pressure on Ms. Meadows. Plaintiffs argued these actions created a "chilling effect" on their First Amendment rights. The court, presided over by District Judge SCULLIN, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, concluding that an interim injunction would not alleviate the alleged "chill" arising from the threat of permanent discharge, nor did Ms. Meadows's asserted harassment meet the irreparable harm standard.

Preliminary InjunctionFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechRetaliationHarassmentTitle IXEmployment DiscriminationChilling EffectIrreparable HarmPublic Employees Fair Employment Act
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06514 [165 AD3d 626]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Dos Anjos v. Palagonia

The plaintiff, Gilberto Dos Anjos, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Tiffany Palagonia and the "Stewart defendants" (Automatic Group, Inc., Stewart Senter, Inc., and Stewart Senter, Inc., Builders), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence. The Stewart defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff wasn't covered by Labor Law and that his own actions were the sole cause of the accident. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding whether the Stewart defendants had hired his employer for floor installation and whether the door central to the accident was indeed unlocked. This necessitates further proceedings to resolve these factual disputes.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactSafe Place to WorkConstruction SiteEmployer LiabilityProximate CauseNegligence
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06602 [243 AD3d 886]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Anjos v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC

Jose Dos Anjos, an employee of D&J Concrete Corp., was injured at a construction site managed by Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, and general-contracted by Andron Construction Corp. He slipped on accumulated rainwater while operating a power saw, cutting his left forearm. Anjos and his wife sued for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding the plaintiffs' appeal, granting their motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, finding a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and no triable issue of fact from the defendants. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6).

Construction AccidentSlip and FallRainwater HazardLabor Law 241(6)12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d)Duty to Provide Safe Work PlaceProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law Negligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

James Wimpy v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P.

Appellant James Wimpy appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Motel 6 Operating, L.P. in a premises liability case after he sustained a right ankle injury from a fall at a Motel 6. Wimpy's counsel failed to file a response and did not appear at the summary judgment hearing, claiming a lack of proper notice. The appellate court examined whether Wimpy received adequate notice of the hearing, concluding that the clerk's notice, in the context of prior discussions, was not reasonably calculated to inform him that the summary judgment motion was set. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, thereby not addressing the motion for new trial.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentMotion for New TrialAdequate NoticeDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedurePersonal InjuryWorker's Compensation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linhart v. Parnes

The plaintiff, who has a collective bargaining agreement with Local 225, International Jewelry Workers Union, A. F. L. — 0.1. 0., sought an injunction pendente lite against defendant Local 150, International Jewelry Workers Union, A. F. L. — 0.1. 0. Local 150 had commenced picketing the plaintiff’s premises with a sign falsely stating that the plaintiff was on strike, and had also filed a petition for certification with the National Labor Relations Board. The court granted the injunction, citing precedents that allow enjoining picketing when its object is not to organize employees but to exert economic pressure upon the employer to coerce employees into joining a particular union, or to compel employer recognition while Labor Relations Board proceedings are pending.

injunctionlabor disputepicketingcollective bargaining agreementNational Labor Relations Boardorganizational purposeseconomic pressureunion recognitionCivil Practice Actpendente lite
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dos Santos v. Terrace Place Realty, Inc.

Plaintiff Joanes Dos Santos was injured in a construction accident involving two vehicles at a work site. He sued general contractor Terrace Place Realty, Inc. and its president Alfred Corradi, alleging common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and to implead Kenneth Sankey, the driver of one of the vehicles. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241(6) claims, finding them inapplicable. However, summary judgment was denied on the Labor Law § 200 claim, as a triable issue of fact existed regarding defendants' direction and control of the work and duty to provide a safe workplace. The court also denied defendants' motion to implead Kenneth Sankey due to untimely filing.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 240Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimProximate CauseIntervening Negligent ActSafe Workplace Duty
References
19
Case No. 15-25-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2025

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

This case involves an appeal by the State of Texas against the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The State, as appellant, initially sued Dr. May C. Lau in Collin County, alleging violations of SB 14 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and issued subpoenas in Dallas County to obtain medical records of 21 nonparty patients. The appellees, eleven nonparty patients, challenged these subpoenas in Dallas County, asserting physician-patient and mental health information privileges under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) and 192.6(a). The State argues that sovereign immunity prevents the Dallas County court from hearing these challenges and that the only proper forum is Collin County. The appellees contend that the Texas Supreme Court precedent dictates that rules of civil procedure apply to the State unless explicitly carved out, and that common law principles of sovereign immunity do not extend to discovery disputes.

Sovereign ImmunityDiscovery DisputeSubpoena ChallengeMedical RecordsPatient PrivilegeMental Health PrivilegeRules of Civil ProcedureRules of EvidenceAppellate LawPlea to Jurisdiction
References
191
Case No. 2017-06-0136
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2017

Higgins, Patricia v. Five Points Healthcare, LLC, d.b.a. Willowbrook Home Health

This claim came before the Court on Patricia Higgins' request for an expedited hearing concerning her entitlement to a second opinion for a work-related injury. Ms. Higgins, a home health nurse for Willowbrook, injured her left knee, hip, lower back, and ribs in August 2016. After initial treatment and a 0% impairment rating from Dr. Christopher Kauffman, Willowbrook denied her request for a second opinion. The Court found that Ms. Higgins failed to provide proof that any physician recommended surgery, which is a prerequisite for a second opinion under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(3)(C). Consequently, the Court determined she was unlikely to prevail on the merits and denied her request for a second opinion.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingSecond OpinionMedical TreatmentKnee InjuryHip InjuryBack InjuryRib InjuryLumbar StrainImpairment Rating
References
2
Case No. 2015-05-0027
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2015

Strunk, Nakesha v. Aramark

Nakesha Strunk filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking a second medical opinion after injuring her low back at work. Aramark Nissan Smyrna accepted the claim, and Ms. Strunk initially treated with Dr. Michael Moran, who referred her to physiatry. She then selected Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood as her authorized treating provider, who later placed her at Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) with a 0% permanent partial disability rating and recommended detoxification, also noting potential malingering. Ms. Strunk contended a disparity in diagnoses and Dr. Hazlewood's conduct, arguing she was entitled to a second opinion under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-204(a)(1)(C). The Court denied her request, finding that neither physician recommended surgery, and the relevant statutes do not entitle an employee to a second opinion on impairment, diagnosis, or pain management treatment.

Expedited HearingSecond Medical OpinionHerniated DiscLow Back PainMaximum Medical ImprovementPermanent Partial DisabilityPhysiatry ReferralPain ManagementStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,232 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