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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2007

Lago v. City of New York-Workers' Compensation Division

This case involves an appeal by the City of New York-Workers’ Compensation Division from two orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The first order, dated October 19, 2007, denied the City's motion to vacate a prior order approving the petitioner's settlement of a personal injury action. The second order, dated January 22, 2008, denied the City's motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the January 22, 2008 order, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument. The order dated October 19, 2007 was affirmed, with the court finding that the City failed to demonstrate the merit of its position for relief under CPLR 5015 (a) (1).

Settlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionAppeal from OrderMotion to VacateReargument MotionCPLR 5015(a)(1)Judicial ReviewAffirmed DecisionDismissed AppealProcedural Issues
References
1
Case No. 24-BC01B-0007
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2024

Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., and HGS Healthcare, LLC

This case concerns a commercial dispute over unpaid commissions, initiated by Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC against Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC. The plaintiff removed the action, originally filed in the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County in 2019, to the newly established First Business Court Division for Dallas County in October 2024. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to remand, contending that the Business Court's jurisdiction, as defined by H.B. 19, is restricted to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The Business Court granted the remand motion, ruling that the plain text of H.B. 19, Section 8, indeed limits its authority to cases filed from September 1, 2024, onwards, thus preventing it from hearing the plaintiff's pre-existing case. The Relator (Synergy) argues this interpretation is a clear abuse of discretion, asserting that H.B. 19 is a procedural statute intended to apply to ongoing matters and that Section 8 merely signifies the court's operational commencement date. The Relator is pursuing mandamus relief, arguing that there is no adequate remedy by conventional appeal.

MandamusBusiness CourtJurisdiction DisputeStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityTexas LawCommercial LitigationRemand OrderAppellate ProcedureEffective Date of Statute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jex v. Albion Correctional Facility

A vocational cosmetology instructor, the claimant, sustained a workplace injury in 1994, exacerbating preexisting respiratory issues, and received workers' compensation benefits until October 1995. In 1999, before taking disability retirement, she filed a new claim for an occupational disease caused by workplace air quality dating back to 1989. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed her occupational disease claim time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, a decision upheld after her application for reconsideration was denied. The court affirmed the Board's finding, stating that occupational disease claims must be filed within two years of disablement and awareness of its work-related cause. Evidence from October and December 1995 indicated the claimant's knowledge of the link between her respiratory problems and employment, thus rendering her 1999 claim untimely.

Occupational diseaseUntimely claimTime-barredRespiratory problemsVocational cosmetology instructorWorkers’ Compensation BoardAppealEvidence of knowledgeDisablement dateWorkplace injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Case No. 14-19-00506-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2020

Michael Reeves v. Central Houston Nissan

This case concerns appellant Michael Reeves, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant and is prohibited from filing new litigation pro se without court permission. Reeves filed an appeal against appellee Central Houston Nissan, but it appears he did so without obtaining the required judicial permission. Consequently, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals has issued an order staying the appeal. The court has stated its intention to dismiss the entire litigation, including vacating the trial court's judgment, unless Reeves secures the necessary permission to file from the administrative judge of the 113th Judicial District Court of Harris County by October 1, 2020.

Vexatious LitigantAppeal StayPro Se LitigationPrefiling OrderCivil ProcedureAppellate CourtDismissal of LitigationTexas LawJudicial PermissionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 14-19-00816-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2021

Alleyton Resource Company, A/K/A Summit Materials, LLC A/K/A Allied Concrete Material v. Joseph Ball

Joseph Ball sued Alleyton Resource Company for retaliatory termination after filing a workers' compensation claim. Ball, a concrete mixer-truck driver, was injured in 2015 and filed a claim. Despite being cleared for full duty, Alleyton terminated his employment in October 2016, shortly after Ball disputed his Maximum Medical Improvement status and initiated formal proceedings with the Texas Department of Insurance. Alleyton cited safety and job performance, but conflicting internal testimony and a lack of adherence to disciplinary policies led a jury to find in Ball's favor, awarding him actual and exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on retaliation, mitigation of damages, and exemplary damages.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimTexas Labor CodeJury VerdictFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceExemplary DamagesMitigation of DamagesEmployment LawAppellate Court DecisionDue Process
References
39
Case No. 19-0791, 19-0792
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

in Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Todd Joseph Dauper

This case from the Supreme Court of Texas consolidates two petitions for writ of mandamus concerning underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance claims. Relators State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Terecina Shahan, and Todd Joseph Dauper sought to overturn trial court denials of their motions for bifurcated trials. The underlying suits, brought by real parties in interest Al Dodds and Alexander Nicastro, alleged only extracontractual violations of the Texas Insurance Code, seeking UIM benefits as damages, but did not include breach-of-contract claims. State Farm argued that an insured must first establish legal entitlement to policy benefits by proving the underinsured motorist's liability and damages in an initial "car crash" trial, even if only statutory claims are pleaded. The Court agreed, holding that such a showing is a prerequisite for recovering on Insurance Code claims when damages are predicated on policy benefits. It found that denying bifurcation was an abuse of discretion, citing the need to preserve judicial resources and prevent prejudice from the admission of settlement offers. The Court conditionally granted the petitions, directing the trial courts to bifurcate the trials.

Underinsured Motorist InsuranceInsurance Code ClaimsBifurcation of TrialsWrit of MandamusExtracontractual ClaimsPolicy BenefitsTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionTrial AbatementSettlement Offers
References
34
Case No. 19
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Pacifica Foundation

Plaintiff Bernard White, an African-American man, sued his former employer, Pacifica Foundation, and board member Stephen M. Brown, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. White, a program director at WBAI, a radio station owned by Pacifica, claimed Brown sent racially charged emails influencing his termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Brown was not personally involved in White's suspension or termination and was not an 'employer' or 'employee/agent' under state and city human rights laws. Furthermore, the court determined that Pacifica provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for White's termination, citing declining fundraising and listenership, and complaints of his abusive behavior. The court granted summary judgment for both defendants, concluding that White failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 1981Program DirectorTerminationWorkplace Harassment
References
218
Case No. 19
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Starr County Hospital District

The plaintiff, identified as Hernandez, sued Starr County Hospital District under EMTALA after its ambulance transported him to Mission Hospital instead of Starr County Memorial Hospital following a work-related injury. The Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not present to its emergency department and no request was made for treatment at its hospital. The Court agreed that the plaintiff entered the defendant's ambulance, thus fulfilling the "comes to the emergency department" requirement per federal regulations. However, the Court found no request was made to transport the plaintiff to Starr County Memorial Hospital, as his employer directed transport to Mission Hospital. Consequently, the Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActSummary JudgmentAmbulance TransportEmergency DepartmentMedical Screening ExaminationRequest for TreatmentHospital LiabilityStarr CountyTexas Tort Claims Act
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,679 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