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
Mar 12, 1991

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. 13-20-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal from a default judgment issued by the County Court at Law No. 10 of Bexar County, Texas, concerning a negligence and breach of contract claim related to a transport truck repair. The appellant, Jaime Martinez d/b/a IMJ Truck Repair, challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial, the sufficiency of evidence for lost profits, and the award of attorney's fees to the appellee, Hauling 365, LLC. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, finding the first Craddock element (no conscious indifference) unsatisfied. It reversed the attorney's fees award due to a lack of presentment of claim, and remanded the issue of lost profits for a new trial due to legally and factually insufficient evidence.

Default judgmentNegligence claimBreach of contractMotion for new trialCraddock testConscious indifferenceLost profitsSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesPresentment requirement
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Eunice Villanueva appealed a summary judgment favoring Structural Repair, LLC and other appellees, stemming from a dispute over foundation repair. An initial arbitration between Villanueva and Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P. resulted in an award for Villanueva on a DTPA violation, which was subsequently confirmed by the trial court. Villanueva then sued the appellees, who were related to Advanced Foundation, asserting similar claims of fraud and DTPA violations. The appellees successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata based on the prior arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration award constituted a final judgment, the appellees were in privity with Advanced Foundation, and the claims were identical to those previously litigated, thus satisfying all elements of res judicata. The court also clarified that Villanueva's attempt to pierce the corporate veil did not introduce a new substantive claim precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppealRes JudicataArbitration AwardPrivityCorporate VeilTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActFoundation RepairFraudCivil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Jim Benson was injured in a product liability case while working in a bucket truck manufactured by TECO and sold by Hobbs Equipment Company. A weld in the boom unit failed, causing the bucket to drop. Benson and his wife, Shirley Benson, sued TECO and Hobbs for negligent design, manufacturing, failure to warn, and negligent repair. The jury found in favor of the Bensons, awarding Jim $160,000 and Shirley $25,000, attributing negligent design to TECO and negligent repair to Hobbs. The defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jury awards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding material evidence to support the jury verdicts.

Product LiabilityNegligent DesignNegligent RepairWorker InjuryAerial DeviceWeld FailurePermanent ImpairmentCompensatory DamagesExpert Witness TestimonyMedical Examinations
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff Newton Rodriguez was injured while operating a forklift at his employer American Specialties, Inc. He subsequently sued Starlift Equipment Company, Inc., alleging negligence in the repair and maintenance of the forklift's brakes. Starlift moved for summary judgment, contending that the forklift it repaired was not the one involved in the accident. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, found that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning the identity of the forklift and whether Starlift's actions, particularly its alleged negligent repairs, could be considered 'launching a force or instrument of harm' under New York law, thereby establishing a duty of care to Rodriguez. Consequently, the court denied Starlift's motion for summary judgment, ruling that these questions should be reserved for a jury.

Summary JudgmentForklift AccidentNegligenceDuty of CareThird-Party LiabilityMoch ExceptionMaterial Issue of FactExpert TestimonyHearsay ExceptionBusiness Records
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal where Sally Siegl sued New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. after sustaining injuries from a fall in a parking lot. New Plan, the property owner, had hired AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc. to repair a water main, which involved excavating and refilling the area with a 'cold patch.' A depression allegedly formed in this refilled area, causing Siegl's fall. New Plan then brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution, alleging AALCO's negligent repair work created the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing both claims. The dissenting judge concurs with dismissing the indemnification claim due to New Plan's own negligence but argues that a triable issue of fact exists regarding AALCO's potential negligence in creating or exacerbating the dangerous depression, therefore the contribution claim should be reinstated.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimNegligenceDangerous ConditionExcavation WorkCold Patch Repair
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Wallace Dyall, an employee of Industrial Pipe and Plastic, Inc. (IPP), and his wife, Deanna Dyall, sued Simpson Pasadena Paper Company (Simpson) for negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se after Wallace Dyall allegedly inhaled chlorine dioxide vapors while repairing a leaking pipe at Simpson's paper mill. Simpson filed for summary judgment, arguing immunity under Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as it exercised no control over the repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment for Simpson, which was affirmed by a divided panel on rehearing. On en banc rehearing, the court again affirmed the trial court's take-nothing summary judgment, finding no evidence of Simpson's control over the manner of work or actual knowledge of the danger as required by Chapter 95. The dissenting opinion argued the majority erred by expanding the scope of the motion, applying the wrong standard of review, and misinterpreting legislative history.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentProperty Owner LiabilityIndependent ContractorTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95Workplace SafetyChlorine Dioxide Exposure
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 5,034 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