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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06230 [164 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Hill v. Mid Is. Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, Danny Hill, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to Mid Island Steel Corp. in a personal injury action. Hill sustained injuries using a telescoping lift owned by Mid Island Steel Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Mid Island Steel Corp., finding it was not an owner, contractor, or agent. However, the court modified the order, reinstating the common-law negligence claim, as Mid Island Steel Corp. failed to prima facie establish the lift was not in a defective condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Defective EquipmentTelescoping LiftAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. 2016-03-0730
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Letner, Aurthur v. Highland Steel Erectors

Arthur Letner, an ironworker, sustained a low back injury in July 2015 while working for Highland Steel Erectors. He underwent two surgeries by neurosurgeon Dr. Christopher Gallati for L4-5 disc herniations. Mr. Letner sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits through an expedited hearing. The court denied his request, finding he failed to provide sufficient evidence that his work injury primarily caused his current need for treatment. Dr. Gallati could not state with medical certainty if the recurrent disc herniations were due to the original work injury or other events like squatting, twisting, and rolling over in bed.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityDisc HerniationLumbar FusionCausationMedical CertaintyIronworkerRecurrent Injury
References
3
Case No. 05-17-01495-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Panhandle Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Luis Cantu

Luis Cantu, an employee of Design Air Systems, was severely injured after falling through an unprotected skylight while working on a roof to remove air conditioning units. Panhandle Steel Erectors, Inc., a crane business, was contracted for the project. Cantu alleged negligence, stating that a unit swayed towards him during a blind lift, causing his fall. A jury found Panhandle, along with Wal-Mart and Design Air, negligent, leading to a judgment of approximately $4.6 million in Cantu's favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on negligence and proximate cause related to Panhandle's failure to provide taglines.

NegligenceCrane OperationsPersonal InjuryWorkplace SafetyProximate CauseStandard of CareJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas LawConstruction Accident
References
43
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02831 [238 AD3d 1302]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2025

Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC

This case involves an appeal by W & W Steel Erectors LLC and its workers' compensation carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board denied the carrier's request to reopen the claim concerning posthumous wage-loss benefits for the minor son of the decedent, Michael Coyle. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits to the son, relying on Matter of Green, and the carrier failed to seek administrative review. After the Court of Appeals reversed Green, the carrier sought to reopen the claim, but the Board denied this request due to the lack of a timely administrative appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening of the claim in the interest of justice.

Workers' CompensationWage-loss benefitsPermanent partial disabilityPosthumous benefitsReopening claimAdministrative reviewAbuse of discretionFinality of decisionAppellate DivisionCourt of Appeals reversal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State of Texas v. Airgas-Mid South, Inc.

The State of Texas, through the Department of Transportation, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Airgas-Mid South, Inc. The State had sued Airgas-Mid South seeking subrogation for worker's compensation payments made to employee Rickey Smith, who was injured on Airgas-Mid South's premises. Airgas-Mid South successfully argued in the trial court that the State's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 16.003. On appeal, the State contended it was exempt from this limitation under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 16.061, which provides an exemption for 'a right of action of this state.' However, the court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that a worker's compensation subrogation claim belongs to the injured employee, not the State, and therefore the State's claim was not exempt from the two-year statute of limitations.

SubrogationStatute of LimitationsWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate LawGovernment ClaimsLegal InterpretationJudicial PrecedentEmployee Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New Rochelle Contracting Corp. v. American Steel Erectors, Inc.

American Steel Erectors, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court of Westchester County, which denied their motion to compel petitioners to comply with a demand for a verified statement under Lien Law § 76 (5). The underlying proceeding was initiated by the petitioners to discharge a public improvement mechanics' lien. American Steel sought a temporary stay of the proceeding, arguing the petitioners failed to provide the verified statement. The Supreme Court properly declined the stay, as a lienor can pursue both trust fund remedies and ordinary lien enforcement. The appellate court affirmed the order, stating that American Steel's proper remedy is to commence a separate proceeding to compel the verified statement.

mechanics' lienpublic improvementverified statementLien Lawappealstay of proceedingtrust fund remediesappellate reviewWestchester County
References
6
Case No. 03-01-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2001

Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas Henry Cuellar, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Texas v. Alicia Del Rio, Phyllis Dunham and Jeremy Wright

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the District Court of Travis County. Appellants, including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of State of Texas, argued that they were not 'governmental units' for the purpose of interlocutory appeal and that the appellees' redistricting claims were not ripe. The Third District Court of Appeals at Austin affirmed the district court's order, holding that state officials acting in their official capacities are indeed 'governmental units' under the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court also found that the consolidated redistricting lawsuit was ripe for judicial consideration, particularly after the state legislature adjourned without enacting a new congressional redistricting plan. Lastly, the court clarified that a prior federal court's retained jurisdiction over 1990 census-based redistricting did not preclude state court jurisdiction over challenges based on the 2000 census.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental UnitRipeness DoctrineOfficial CapacityRedistrictingCongressional DistrictsJurisdictionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice & Remedies Code
References
27
Case No. 3-93-124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1994

Reuters America, Inc. v. John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, Martha Whitehead, Treasurer of the State of Texas, and Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas

Reuters America, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of a Texas state tax scheme that taxed information services but exempted newspapers. Reuters argued this violated the free speech and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The Comptroller had audited Reuters and assessed additional taxes based on its classification as an information service. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the tax, concluding that it did not infringe upon First Amendment rights as it was not content-based, did not target a small group of speakers, and was a generally applicable sales tax. The court also found that the tax scheme was rationally related to legitimate state interests, such as promoting literacy and administrative economy, and therefore did not violate equal protection.

Constitutional LawTaxationFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionInformation Services TaxNewspaper ExemptionTexas Court of AppealsFreedom of PressState Tax SchemeJudicial Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 12,372 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