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. 13-14-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2015

Paul Salazar v. Crossroads Mechanical, Inc.

Paul Salazar sued his former employer, Crossroads Mechanical, Inc. (CMI), alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Salazar was fired after taking two days off for voluntary medical research appointments, despite being explicitly denied permission by his supervisor. CMI maintained that the termination was due to Salazar's violation of its two-day no-call/no-show attendance policy, which it claimed was uniformly enforced. Salazar countered that his termination was retaliatory, pointing to his supervisor's negative attitude after his workers' compensation claims, alleged policy non-adherence by CMI, and discriminatory treatment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CMI, a decision which the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Salazar failed to raise a fact issue regarding whether his discharge was causally linked to his workers' compensation claim.

Wrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimAbsence-Control PolicySummary JudgmentCausal LinkCircumstantial EvidencePrima Facie CaseNon-discriminatory ReasonSimilarly Situated Employees
References
16
Case No. 2-05-154-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Woodrow S. Peery v. Stanley Mechanic Tools, Inc. A/K/A Stanley Mechanics Tools A/K/A the Stanley Works

This is an appeal in a workers' compensation employment retaliation case. Appellant Woodrow S. Peery challenged the trial court's order in favor of appellee Stanley Mechanic Tools, Inc. Peery contended that three veniremembers were biased and that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause. The appellate court found that Peery did not properly preserve error because he failed to peremptorily strike two objectionable veniremembers and did not timely notify the trial court before the jury was empaneled. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

workers' compensationemployment retaliationjury selectionchallenges for causeveniremembersjury biaspreservation of errorappellate procedureTexas civil procedurememorandum opinion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalloo ex rel. Ulimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc. v. Unlimited Mechanical Co. of NY, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Kalloo, Shahrazz Mohammad, and Clement Albertie sued Unlimited Mechanical Co. of New York, Inc. and its president, Nicholas Bournias, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs claimed they were not paid appropriate overtime compensation for hours worked, uncompensated travel time, and, in Mr. Kalloo's case, unpaid wages for his last two weeks of employment. The court found Mr. Bournias individually liable as an employer under both acts and determined that Mr. Kalloo was an employee, not an independent contractor. The court concluded that the defendants failed to pay full overtime and straight time wages for hours worked and travel time, awarding substantial damages and liquidated damages to all three plaintiffs. Defendants' counterclaims for unjust enrichment against Mr. Albertie and tortious interference against Mr. Kalloo were denied.

Wage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationUnpaid Travel TimeFLSA ViolationsNYLL ViolationsEmployer ResponsibilityIndividual Employer LiabilityEmployee ClassificationDamages AwardLiquidated Damages
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp.

The plaintiffs, former employees of Olympia Mechanical Piping & Heating Corp., initiated an action to recover unpaid wages and supplemental benefits under Labor Law § 220, alleging they were paid below the prevailing rate for public works projects. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed several causes of action, including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and suretyship, for failure to state a cause of action, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-application to serve a second amended complaint. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the dismissals of the various causes of action. However, the appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiffs' cross-application for leave to serve a second amended complaint, citing the absence of prejudice to the defendant and the potential merit of the plaintiffs' claims.

Labor LawPrevailing WageBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Leave to AmendAppellate ReviewPublic Works
References
18
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06776 [131 AD3d 1002]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2015

Emanuel v. MMI Mechanical, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an appeal concerning an action for personal injuries. The court dismissed the appeal from an intermediate order, as it merged into the final judgment. The main issue was whether the Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants MMI Mechanical, Inc., Lester Starr, Wartburg Lutheran Home for the Aging, and Wartburg Nursing Home, Inc., based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendants had established their entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the issue of whether the plaintiff sustained a work-related injury had already been decided in a Workers' Compensation Board proceeding and was identical to the issue in the current action. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact or show lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue previously.

collateral estoppelsummary judgmentpersonal injuryworkers' compensation boardappellate reviewjudgment affirmeddismissalwork-related injuryissue preclusionappellate procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re St. James Mechanical, Inc.

ITT Sheraton Corporation (ITT) moved to extend its time to file a proof of claim or to have the notice of appointment of the Creditors Committee deemed an informal claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of St. James Mechanical, Inc. (the Debtor). The Court denied both aspects of ITT's motion. The Court ruled that ITT no longer possessed a pre-petition claim against the Debtor because it was discharged upon the confirmation of the reorganization plan, thus making Rule 9006(b) for extending claim filing time inapplicable. Additionally, the Court found that the Notice of Appointment did not constitute a valid informal proof of claim as it was not filed by ITT and lacked sufficient intent. However, the Court determined that despite ITT's failure to file a timely claim, it is still entitled to the treatment outlined in the confirmed plan, as the plan's provisions are binding on all parties, acting as res judicata, even if they contained legal errors in ITT's inclusion.

BankruptcyChapter 11Proof of ClaimExcusable NeglectPlan ConfirmationDischargeDue ProcessRes JudicataInformal ClaimCreditors Committee
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,295 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