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 24, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Joseph Dwyer, a construction worker, filed a slip-and-fall action against Goldman Sachs Headquarters LLC (building owner) and Structure Tone, Inc. (general contractor) for injuries sustained while working at a construction site. Dwyer asserted claims under New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. Defendants brought a third-party action for contractual indemnification against OH & M Electrical Corp., Dwyer's employer. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 240(1) claims, Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim against OH & M. For Labor Law § 241(6) claims, summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part, allowing claims based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) and (e)(2) to proceed.

Slip-and-FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkplace SafetyNew YorkGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityHazardous Opening
References
33
Case No. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

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

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The Secretary of Labor sought a preliminary injunction against Fashion Headquarters and its President, Paul Cascio, for violating the "hot goods" provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(1). The defendants were accused of transporting or selling goods produced by contractors who failed to comply with FLSA minimum wage and overtime provisions. The court found that the Secretary successfully demonstrated irreparable harm would ensue without an injunction and showed a clear likelihood of success on the merits, referencing the defendants' history of non-compliance and unreliability. Although the court granted the preliminary injunction, it determined that the Secretary's proposed terms were overly broad. Consequently, a narrower injunction was issued, mandating that the defendants implement steps to ensure contractor compliance with the FLSA, including verifying adherence, reviewing payroll records, obtaining written assurances, and promptly reporting any violations to the Department of Labor.

FLSAHot GoodsPreliminary InjunctionMinimum WageOvertimeContractor LiabilityUnfair CompetitionLabor Law ViolationsEquitable ReliefJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2011

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

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an arbitral award. Respondents Everlast challenged the award, arguing procedural defaults, arbitrator misconduct, and that arbitrators exceeded their authority in interpreting 'termination' versus 'expiration' in a contract. The court found no default by Everlast, stating their motion to vacate did not prejudice the petitioner. It also found no arbitrator misconduct as Everlast failed to prove the necessity of requested disclosures. Furthermore, the court determined that the arbitrators' interpretation of 'termination' as distinct from 'expiration' was rational and supported by the agreement's context, and thus they did not exceed their powers. The court reiterated that manifest disregard of facts is not a valid ground for vacating an award.

ArbitrationContract InterpretationArbitrator AuthorityProcedural LawAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme CourtCommercial ArbitrationContractual TermsAffirmanceLegal Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2011

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from September 15, 2011, which had denied third-party defendant Zwicker Electric Co.'s motion for summary judgment. Zwicker sought to dismiss third-party claims of contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity, and contribution brought by defendants Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC and Tishman Construction Corp. The court found that questions of fact existed regarding whether insufficient lighting, for which Zwicker Electric Co. was responsible, was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident in this Labor Law case. Evidence indicated that a metal sheet covering a hole, despite warning labels, was not observed by workers due to inadequate lighting, leading to the plaintiff's fall. Furthermore, the contract obligated Zwicker to indemnify defendants for claims arising from their work or negligence, and the court determined that the accident arose from Zwicker's work, triggering the indemnity provision due to factual questions about Zwicker's negligence.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnityContributionProximate CauseInsufficient LightingWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2001

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

An actor sustained personal injuries while filming a television commercial, leading to an action against BBD&O, Pizza Hut, and Headquarters. The claims against BBD&O and Pizza Hut were dismissed via summary judgment, as Headquarters, an independent contractor, was deemed responsible for the production, personnel, and equipment. The court granted Headquarters' motion to amend its answer, allowing it to assert a workers' compensation defense based on the potential for Headquarters being a special employer. However, Headquarters' request for summary judgment based on this defense was denied, as a factual issue remained regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed both the earlier order and the judgment.

Personal InjuryTelevision ProductionActor InjuryIndependent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employment DoctrineAppellate DivisionEmployer Immunity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff AMR Services Corporation sought a preliminary injunction against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and its Local 851 and Airline Division, alleging illegal picketing at J.F.K. International Airport. AMR contended the picketing violated the Railway Labor Act by aiming for representational and organizational purposes among AMR's employees. The defendant unions argued their actions were legitimate, primarily protesting Korean Air Lines' contract termination with Triangle Aviation Services and publicizing AMR's alleged substandard wages, not to organize AMR employees. The court found no objective evidence of a present purpose by the unions to seek recognition of AMR employees, distinguishing the case from precedents involving explicit organizational efforts. Consequently, the court concluded that no "dispute" over representation existed under the Railway Labor Act, and the Norris-LaGuardia Act barred the injunction, leading to its denial.

Labour disputeRailway Labor ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActPicketingUnion representationArea standardsPreliminary injunctionCollective bargainingFederal labor law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Royston Robinson, a sheet metal worker, was injured after falling five feet from an unsecured A-frame ladder, prompting an action to recover damages under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion for summary judgment on liability. Initially, Robinson's deposition testimony asserting the ladder "kicked out" established a prima facie case. However, the defendants presented conflicting accident reports where Robinson previously attributed the fall to losing his footing or balance, without mentioning a ladder malfunction. This created a triable issue of fact regarding whether Robinson's own carelessness was the sole proximate cause of the fall, leading the Supreme Court to properly deny summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the order.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentProximate CauseTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyAccident ReportContributory Negligence
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07130 [176 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Claimant, a Volunteer Community Ambassador, was injured while volunteering for a charitable organization and sought workers' compensation benefits. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, concluding that no employer-employee relationship existed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the claimant was strictly a volunteer, despite some organizational direction over her activities. Therefore, she was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

Volunteer InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer-Employee RelationshipCharitable OrganizationVolunteerismSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactRight to Control WorkMethod of Payment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1993

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

This case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed a petitioner's application to overturn the Facilities Development Corporation's rejection of its bid for a public construction project. The petitioner, the lowest bidder, was deemed not responsible or reliable due to non-compliance with bid specifications, failure to disclose OSHA violations, and a perceived lack of organizational and financial capacity. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner received adequate due process and that the Corporation's decision was rational, supported by evidence of material misrepresentation and poor past performance.

Bid RejectionPublic ContractsCPLR Article 78Due ProcessResponsible BidderGovernment ProcurementAdministrative ReviewContract ComplianceOSHA DisclosureAppellate Division
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 46 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