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. 04-97-00325-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 1998

Exxon Corporation v. Omar Garza

Omar Garza sued Exxon Corporation for injuries sustained at one of its gas leases, alleging negligence and premises liability after slipping and falling while attempting to flee a transformer fire. The jury initially found Exxon liable, awarding Garza $494,385. On appeal, Exxon argued the initial January 16 judgment was interlocutory, not final, but then contended the evidence was legally insufficient for premises liability. The appellate court confirmed the January 16 judgment was interlocutory but found the evidence legally insufficient to establish Exxon had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on the Yates Lease. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a judgment was rendered that Garza take nothing from Exxon.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceActual KnowledgeConstructive KnowledgeTransformer FireSlip and FallOil and Gas LeaseInterlocutory JudgmentFinal Judgment
References
21
Case No. No. 13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2019

The People v. Omar Alvarez

Omar Alvarez appealed the denial of his writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He claimed his original appellate counsel failed to challenge his 66 ⅔ years to life sentence as unduly harsh, submitted a deficient brief, and communicated poorly. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that counsel provided meaningful representation, highlighting the discretion afforded to appellate attorneys in selecting arguments. The court found no strategic reason for counsel to pursue an excessive sentence claim given the violent crimes and Alvarez's conduct. Dissenting opinions, however, criticized counsel's overall performance, particularly the brief's quality and the missed opportunity to argue for a sentence reduction, especially considering the defendant's youth at the time of the offense.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselAppellate CounselCoram NobisSentence ReviewUnduly Harsh SentenceMeaningful RepresentationCriminal Procedure LawCourt of AppealsNarcotics TraffickingHomicide Conviction
References
50
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04471 [196 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Omar v. Moore

Plaintiff Nasir Muzaid Omar brought an action against Michael Moore, II, and Sadeq Ahmed, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment stemming from unsatisfactory construction work. Following a prior appeal where the unjust enrichment claim against Ahmed survived, and the discontinuance of the action against Moore, Ahmed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the sole remaining unjust enrichment cause of action. The Supreme Court granted Ahmed's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the judgment, denied Ahmed's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the unjust enrichment cause of action, finding Ahmed failed to meet his prima facie burden.

Summary judgmentUnjust enrichmentBreach of contractNegligenceConstruction disputeAppellate reviewPrima facie showingFraudulent inducementQuasi-contractMotion practice
References
17
Case No. ADJ1957595 (SFO 0510728)
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

MOHSEN ALHUNITI (Deceased), NEHAYA ALHUNITI, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem and Trustee for OMAR ALHUNITI and JASMINE ALHUNITI, HAIRICH AWARTANI vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION

This case involves Mohsen Alhunti's dependents seeking workers' compensation benefits from Sears Holding Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration. The denial adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, upholding the original decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMOHSEN ALHUNITINEHAYA ALHUNITIOMAR ALHUNITIJASMINE ALHUNITIHAIRICH AWARTANISEARS HOLDING CORPORATIONADJ1957595ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgess v. Omar

Plaintiff sued defendants for fraud related to a stock sale of corporate defendants to Omar. Defendants filed three counterclaims: two corporate defendants sought recovery of over $50,000 allegedly advanced to plaintiff for personal expenses, and all three corporate defendants sought over $5 million for breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, and waste under N.Y. Bus. Corp. L. § 720. Defendant Omar also sought declaratory judgment regarding plaintiff's alleged actions in forcing him out of a separate entity. The court determined there was no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the counterclaims and that they did not arise from a common nucleus of operative fact with the complaint. Specifically, the third counterclaim involved a different company after the alleged fraud, and while the first and second involved the transferred business, their focus on years of alleged corporate looting differed significantly from the complaint's focus on the brief period of the stock sale. Even if supplemental jurisdiction existed, the court declined to exercise it under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2), finding the state law counterclaims would substantially predominate over the federal claim. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Federal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionCounterclaimsSubject Matter JurisdictionCommon Nucleus of Operative FactFraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate WasteStock SaleRule 10b-5
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ocasio v. Konesky

Plaintiff Omar Ocasio, an inmate, commenced an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Konesky, a social worker at Wende Correctional Facility. Ocasio alleged that Konesky retaliated against him by removing him from a mental health program (Intensive Intermediate Care Program - IICP) in March 2009, following his complaints. Konesky moved for summary judgment. The court found no genuine issues of material fact supporting the retaliation claim, noting Konesky's actions were based on her observations of Ocasio's symptoms and supported by his treating physician, Dr. Paulo Española. The court also dismissed any potential Eighth Amendment claim for inadequate medical care, as Ocasio continued to receive mental health services. Consequently, Konesky's motion for summary judgment was granted, the complaint was dismissed, and Ocasio's separate motions to compel discovery and change venue were denied as moot.

Retaliation ClaimPrisoner RightsMental Health CareSummary Judgment GrantedPro Se PlaintiffEighth AmendmentCorrectional FacilityInmate GrievancesPsychiatric DiagnosisSocial Worker Conduct
References
6
Case No. ADJ7073544
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

OMAR NUNEZ vs. PETROCHEM INSULATION, INC., AIG CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior dismissal of Omar Nunez's case. The WCAB found that the dismissal for failure to appear at trial violated Nunez's due process rights because no specific Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT) was issued for his non-appearance. The prior NIT addressed failure to prosecute, not failure to appear, thus depriving Nunez of an opportunity to object. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissFailure to AppearDue ProcessWCAB RulesDismissal Without PrejudiceFailure to ProsecuteViolation of RulesRescind OrderReturn to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ7761887
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

OMAR SMITH vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, GULF INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the New York Giants' petition for reconsideration, reversing the trial judge's decision. The Board found that a mandatory forum selection clause in Omar Smith's employment contracts, requiring New Jersey law and jurisdiction for disputes, was reasonable and enforceable. Applying the precedent set in *McKinley v. Arizona Cardinals*, the Board determined there was a limited connection to California regarding Smith's employment and claimed injury. Therefore, the WCAB declined to exercise jurisdiction and ordered that Smith take nothing on his claim.

WCABreconsiderationforum selection clauseNew Jersey Workers' Compensation CommissionMcKinley v. Arizona Cardinalsexclusive jurisdictioncumulative injurypermanent disabilityindustrial injuryprofessional athlete
References
13
Case No. 2018-03-1082A; 2018-03-1082B; 9706-2016; 81428-2018
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Murillo, Said Omar Jemenez v. Leonard Sams and Associates

Said Omar Jemenez Murillo sought workers' compensation benefits for severe injuries sustained in a fall, including medical bills and temporary disability. The claims were filed against Leonard Sams and Associates and Alexander Calix Garcia, who denied an employer-employee relationship, asserting Murillo was an independent contractor and lacked insurance. The Court noted conflicting testimonies regarding employment terms, payment, and supervision. Ultimately, the Court found Murillo failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating an employment relationship with either defendant or a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically lacking proof regarding who controlled the work, hired or could terminate him, supplied tools, or paid him. Consequently, Murillo's claims for benefits were denied, and the case was set for a Scheduling Hearing.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipDenied BenefitsExpedited HearingConstruction IndustryMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityFall InjuryEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. ADJ7670179, ADJ7673731
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

OMAR HERNANDEZ vs. THE BUMBER SHOP, AVIZENT PRAETORIAN INSURANCE, CHARTIS INSURANCE

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) case, the applicant, Omar Hernandez, filed a Petition for Removal. The WCAB reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Based on their review and the judge's report, the WCAB has denied the Petition for Removal. The Order indicates the WCAB found no grounds to disturb the administrative law judge's decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Removaldenial of removalworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ reportADJ7670179ADJ7673731Marina del Rey District OfficeFrank M. BrassDeidra E. Lowe
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 29 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