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. 06-10-00100-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2011

David Len Moulton v. State

David Len Moulton was convicted of murdering his wife, Rebecca Moulton, and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment. The conviction was appealed on several grounds, including an erroneous jury charge. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana found that the trial court's jury charge, which included "asphyxiation by manner and means unknown" when the manner and means were "unknowable" (i.e., multiple known options were presented by evidence), was erroneous. The court determined this error caused "some harm" to Moulton, especially considering the State's closing argument focused on the "manner and means unknown" allegation coupled with suffocation testimony. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Criminal AppealJury Charge ErrorAsphyxiationManner and Means UnknownHomicideMedical Examiner TestimonyAutopsy ReportDomestic ViolenceEvidence SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1999

Hill v. Warner Bros.

This case involves an appeal affirming a lower court's grant of summary judgment, dismissing a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff was deemed a "special employee" of defendant By Any Means Necessary Cinema (BAMN), despite concurrent employment with IDC Services, which barred his personal injury action under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court also found that other named defendants, including Spike Lee, were co-employees, precluding an action against them under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6). Furthermore, defendants Warner Brothers, Inc. and Forty Acres & A Mule Film Works were not involved in the film production, and Palace Fried Chicken was too distant to be a contributing factor. Finally, no evidence supported a finding of negligence against defendant John Catsimatides.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate AffirmationFilm IndustryPayroll ServicesNegligenceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. ADJ8490445
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

MARIO GAMA vs. ALIREZA OLAMAI, An Individual, DBA SIGN EXPRESS, UNINSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's finding, and substituted its own determination that the applicant was an employee, not an independent contractor. The Board found that the defendant retained the right to control the manner and means of the applicant's work. The applicant worked at the defendant's shop, used the defendant's tools and equipment, and followed specific instructions for sign creation, indicating an employer-employee relationship.

Independent ContractorEmployeeRight to ControlBorelloEstradaLabor Code § 3357Labor Code § 3353WCJPetition for ReconsiderationUEBTF
References
11
Case No. 06-10-00100-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2011

in the Interest of D. M. H. and K. M. H., Minor Children

David Len Moulton appealed his murder conviction for the death of his wife, Rebecca Moulton. The primary issue was the trial court's erroneous jury instruction, which included an "asphyxiation by manner and means unknown" allegation alongside manual strangulation and drowning. The medical examiner could not conclusively determine the exact cause of asphyxia, though several options were identified through evidence. The appellate court found that the erroneous instruction, coupled with the prosecutor's arguments, caused harm to Moulton. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Murder convictionCriminal appealJury charge errorAsphyxiationManner and means unknownStrangulationDrowningSuffocationDomestic violenceMedical examiner testimony
References
61
Case No. ADJ8438071
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

MONICA CONTRERAS vs. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, SACRAMENTO METRO; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE IRVINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Monica Contreras was an employee of Keller Williams Realty. The WCAB determined that the initial finding was erroneously based on the legal requirement for real estate agents to be associated with a broker, rather than a factual analysis of the control exercised by the defendant. The case is returned to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and a new decision considering the factual relationship and the multi-factor test for employment status. The WCAB emphasized that the right to control the means and manner of work is the primary test.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonica ContrerasKeller Williams RealtyTower National InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorReal Estate Agent
References
16
Case No. ADJ7271617
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

LEONARD KEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves applicant Leonard Key seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained while teaching a music production course. The defendant, Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), contended that Key was an independent contractor and not an employee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's finding that Key was an employee, emphasizing LACOE's control over the means and manner of his work, despite an independent contractor agreement. Key lacked control over class schedules, room assignments, and was paid hourly, weighing against independent contractor status. Therefore, the WCAB found that LACOE failed to meet its burden to prove Key was an independent contractor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeonard KeyLos Angeles County Office of EducationCorvel CorporationADJ7271617Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJemployee statusindependent contractordirection and control
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gazder v. Air India

Plaintiff Dorab Gazder, a U.S. resident, sued his employer Air India for wrongful discharge, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Air India, an instrumentality of the foreign state of India, moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it is not an "employer" under the ADEA due to its governmental status and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court examined the definitions of "employer" in the ADEA and the "commercial activity" provisions of the FSIA. Concluding that Air India's commercial activity makes it liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private person," the court held that Air India is indeed an "employer" within the meaning of the ADEA. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint was granted, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawForeign Sovereign Immunities ActADEACommercial ActivityMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationWrongful TerminationJurisdictionSovereign Immunity
References
34
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07549 [189 AD3d 1187]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2020

Gomez v. 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp.

Aris Gomez sustained personal injuries while working at a construction site owned by 670 Merrick Road Realty Corp., where Cappy's Warehouse Wine & Spirits, Inc. also contracted for work. He alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence after being injured while repositioning a cement slab. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's orders by denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against both defendants, finding issues of fact regarding elevation-related risks and the definition of 'owner'. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence claims, determining that the industrial code provisions cited were inapplicable and the defendants did not supervise the work's means and manner.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskStatutory InterpretationOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorIndustrial Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. State

Justice R.S. Smith dissents in part from the majority's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' takings claims, arguing that the majority's reasoning regarding Chapter 1 of the Laws of 2002 is flawed. The dissent posits that the state's requirement for Empire to allocate 95% of its assets to public uses upon conversion constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, similar to a "plan of extortion". Smith argues that the "exactions" analysis, typically applied to land-use cases, should extend to personal property. The opinion emphasizes that Empire's property is private and protected by the Takings Clauses, and its "investment-backed expectations" as a not-for-profit entity should be respected, meaning its assets should be used in a manner consistent with its original charitable purposes of providing affordable health care coverage in New York. The dissent concludes that further factual development is necessary to determine if the uses mandated by Chapter 1 for Empire's public assets are reasonably consistent with its charitable mission, especially concerning the significant portion dedicated to hospital worker recruitment and retention.

Takings ClausePrivate PropertyUnconstitutional ConditionsExactionsInvestment-Backed ExpectationsNot-For-Profit CorporationsCharitable AssetsHealth Care FundingDissenting OpinionNew York Law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 666 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