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

Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses a product liability action filed by Alonso and Elizabeth Lara against Delta International Machinery Corp. following Alonso Lara's hand injury from a Delta table saw. The court granted Delta's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs' expert, Stanley H. Fein, finding his design defect opinions unreliable due to a lack of testing and speculative methodology. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' design defect claim was dismissed for lack of admissible expert testimony. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, acknowledging a genuine dispute regarding whether adequate warnings could have been conveyed to Lara by third parties despite his inability to read English. Additionally, claims for breach of express warranty, manufacturing defect, and loss of services were deemed abandoned, and the breach of implied warranty claim was dismissed as time-barred.

Products LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702Table Saw AccidentIndustrial SafetyMechanical Engineering
References
128
Case No. NO. 12-08-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Dewayne Rogers Logging, Inc. v. Propac Industries, Ltd., East Texas MacHinery Rental, Inc. and Deere & Company, D/B/A John Deere Company

Dewayne Rogers Logging, Inc. (Rogers Logging) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Propac Industries, Ltd., East Texas Machinery Rental, Inc., and Deere & Company (Appellees). The case stemmed from the destruction of a delimber machine by fire. Rogers Logging, as subrogee for Lloyds of London, initially sued Appellees for negligence, strict liability, DTPA violations, and breach of warranties. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees on all claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the economic loss rule barred tort claims, there was no evidence of manufacturing, design, or marketing defects, Lloyds lacked consumer standing under DTPA, and disclaimers effectively negated implied warranties. The court also found no error in denying a continuance.

Summary JudgmentEconomic Loss RuleStrict LiabilityNegligenceGross NegligenceManufacturing DefectDesign DefectMarketing DefectDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of Express Warranty
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacHinery Sales Co. v. Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC

Machinery Sales Co., Inc. filed an action for rescission of a contract to purchase a chip mill, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by Diamondcut Forestry Products, LLC, Columbia Trading, Inc., and Champion International Corporation regarding the mill's value and included items. Following a bench trial, the court found no fraud and entered judgment for the defendants. Machinery Sales appealed, presenting issues concerning fraudulent inducement, agency imputation, entitlement to rescission, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding that defendants did not fraudulently induce the contract.

Rescission of ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationChip Mill SaleContract DisputeBench TrialAppellate ReviewAffirmed JudgmentTennessee LawReal Estate AppraisalAgency Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit Alliance Corp. v. Nixon MacHinery Co. (In Re Nixon MacHinery Co.)

Credit Alliance financed machinery sales by Nixon Machinery, retaining security interests which Nixon assigned to Credit Alliance with recourse. After buyers defaulted, Nixon repossessed the machines and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Credit Alliance initiated this action to recover the machines and lease payments, arguing Nixon had no interest beyond being a bailee. The court determined Nixon held an equity interest in the machines, having acquired buyers' rights through foreclosure. The court denied Credit Alliance's immediate recovery, instead allowing Nixon 150 days to sell or lease four machines under specific terms, and ordered a hearing to determine the division of rental payments for a fifth leased machine, aiming to balance Nixon's reorganization efforts with Credit Alliance's security interests.

Chapter 11BankruptcySecured TransactionsChattel PaperRepossessionForeclosureUniform Commercial CodeRecourse AgreementsSecurity InterestDebtor's Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04384 [196 AD3d 609]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2021

Rampersaud v. Hsieh Hsu Mach. Co., Ltd.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury action. Plaintiff Rudenauth Rampersaud was injured while operating machinery during employment with Ares Printing and Packaging Corporation. He and his wife sued the manufacturer, Hsieh Hsu Machinery Co., Ltd., and service provider, Orbit Electrical Services Corp. Ares, as a third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint and cross-claims. The Appellate Division dismissed part of the appeal as academic, modified the lower court's order by granting summary judgment to Ares dismissing the third-party complaint, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment on Hsieh's cross-claims against Ares. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Ares's potential negligence and whether the injured plaintiff suffered a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContributionCorrugator MachineIndustrial AccidentEmployer NegligenceProximate CauseGrave Injury
References
14
Case No. 2017-03-0080
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2018

Duignan, Duwan v. Stowers Machinery Corporation

This Remand Compensation Order, issued by the Tennessee Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, addresses the case of Duwan Duignan against Stowers Machinery Corporation and Zurich American Insurance Company. Following a remand from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, Judge Pamela B. Johnson determined Mr. Duignan is entitled to 51.03 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits, amounting to $41,801.22. This decision was based on a seven-percent permanent impairment rating, overriding a conflicting nine-percent rating. The Court also ordered Stowers to continue providing medical treatment and approved a twenty-percent attorney's fee for Mr. Duignan's counsel, totaling $8,360.24.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingAttorney FeesRemand OrderTreating PhysicianBenefit CalculationDisability BenefitsJudicial ReviewStipulation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Delta International MacHinery Corp.

Gregory Hill sued Delta International Machinery Corp. and Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. for personal injuries sustained while using a power saw. The suit, initially filed in New York state court, was removed to federal court after a non-diverse defendant, Hill's employer AD Mfg., was dismissed. Hill subsequently moved for the case to be remanded back to state court, arguing that the removal was untimely, occurring more than one year after the original complaint. Defendants opposed, seeking an equitable extension of the removal period due to alleged fraudulent joinder of AD Mfg. The court, presided over by Judge Scheindlin, granted Hill's motion, concluding that the defendants failed to prove either fraudulent joinder or strategic behavior by the plaintiff that would justify extending the one-year removal limit.

Removal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFraudulent JoinderEquitable ExtensionTimeliness of RemovalFederal CourtState CourtRemandPersonal InjuryProduct Liability
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. United Container MacHinery Group, Inc.

This case concerns the interpretation of 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, specifically whether the loss of multiple fingertips constitutes such an injury. Marvin Castro suffered the loss of five fingertips in a work accident and initiated a lawsuit against the machine manufacturer, United Container Machinery Group, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Castro's employer, Southern Container Corp., for contribution and indemnification. Southern sought to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 precluded recovery for injuries not classified as grave. The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Southern, granting summary judgment, a decision that the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed. The Court held that 'loss of multiple fingers' in the statute refers to the total loss of fingers, not partial loss of fingertips, based on plain language and legislative intent.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryLoss of Multiple FingersPartial Loss of FingersStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionContribution and IndemnificationSummary Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stigall v. Wickes MacHinery, a Division of the Wickes Corp.

Ricky Stigall, the plaintiff, filed a tort action against Wickes Machinery and Robbins and Myers, Inc. (and its divisions). He was injured on September 9, 1981, while operating a die-casting machine during his employment with Hunter Fan and Ventilating Company, a subsidiary of Robbins and Myers, Inc. Stigall settled a workers' compensation claim against Hunter Fan. The trial court initially dismissed the action against Robbins and Myers entities, citing the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding Robbins and Myers, Inc. was not Stigall's employer and thus not immune from tort liability. Robbins and Myers, Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Hunter Fan and Ventilating Company and Robbins and Myers, Inc. were "identical or indistinguishable in fact" and that Robbins and Myers, Inc. was Stigall's employer, thereby granting it immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.

Corporate Veil PiercingWorkers' Compensation ImmunityParent-Subsidiary LiabilityEmployer DefinitionThird-Party Tort ActionSummary Judgment AppealCorporate IntegrationAgency TheoryTennessee LawDie-casting Machine Injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,355 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