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

Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.

Carlos Huerta, an undocumented worker, sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei, claiming they failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by public works contracts. Strong Steel Door had terminated Huerta's employment after discovering he provided false documentation. Strong Steel Door sought summary judgment, arguing the employment contract was illegal due to the false documentation and that Huerta was precluded from recovery by the doctrine of 'unclean hands.' The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed. The appellate court held that neither the contract nor the work performed was illegal, and Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta's false documentation as they received the bargained-for labor. Additionally, Strong Steel Door failed to meet its burden of proof regarding payment of the prevailing wage.

breach of contractsummary judgmentprevailing wageundocumented workerillegal contract defenseunclean hands doctrineImmigration Reform and Control Actemployment lawappellate reviewcontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

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

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

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. 13-20-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

Jaime Martinez D/B/A IMJ Truck Repair v. Hauling 365, LLC

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

Echevarria v. 158th St. Riverside Drive Housing Co.

This case involves a plaintiff, an employee of Gould Services, who sustained injuries while attempting to repair a cracked terrace door in a building owned by Riverside. The plaintiff alleged that Riverside, as the building owner, had a duty to repair the door under an occupancy agreement and possessed actual or constructive notice of the defect. The motion court denied Riverside’s motion for summary judgment against the plaintiff, citing triable issues of fact regarding Riverside's duty to repair, the potential modification of the occupancy agreement by prior conduct, and the notice of the defective door. Furthermore, the court granted third-party defendant Gould Services’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing Riverside’s third-party complaint for indemnification. This decision was based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as there was no 'grave injury' to the employee and no valid written indemnification agreement existed between Riverside and Gould Services.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawContractual DutyNotice of DefectSupervening CauseOccupancy AgreementThird-Party ClaimCourse of Conduct
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. v. Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd.

This case involves Vought Aircraft Industries' claim against its marine cargo insurers, Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd., XL London Market, Limited, and Dornoch Limited, for breach of policy and other claims. A horizontal stabilizer manufactured by Vought was damaged during rail shipment, a peril covered by the marine cargo insurance policy. Vought repaired the stabilizer and sought reimbursement for direct repair costs, overhead expenses, and expediting costs for replacement stabilizers. The court largely dismissed Vought's claims for expediting costs and overhead expenses, finding most were not covered by the policy, though it noted ambiguity in certain policy clauses regarding some shipping costs and overhead. All of Vought's extra-contractual claims, including breach of good faith and fair dealing, unfair insurance practices, breach of repair agreement, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, were dismissed. XL London Market, Limited's defense asserting it acted solely as an agent for a disclosed principal was denied, indicating a factual dispute.

Marine Cargo InsuranceInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodePolicy AmbiguityOverhead CostsExpediting Costs
References
73
Case No. CA 14-01767
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

WOLFE, PHILLIP v. WAYNE-DALTON CORPORATION

Phillip Wolfe, a warehouse manager, sustained injuries after falling from a safety ladder while attempting to repair an overhead receiving door cable. He initiated an action against the warehouse owners, including Joanne Leska and Robert Tarson, Jr., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted Wolfe partial summary judgment on liability, deeming the activity a protected "repair." On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming that Wolfe was engaged in a protected activity but finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the injury was due to an elevation-related risk under the statute. The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' immunity defense under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) and upheld the denial of their motion for leave to renew.

Ladder fallWarehouse injuryLabor Law § 240 (1) claimWorkers' Compensation immunitySummary judgmentAppellate reviewElevation-related riskOverhead door repairTriable issue of factNew York Appellate Division
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lunn v. Silfies

Plaintiffs sued defendants to recover the remaining balance for services and materials provided for home repairs in Olean, New York. The total claim was $8,014.86, with $4,069.02 already paid, leaving a balance of $3,945.84. Defendants argued that the repairs were not performed in a good and workmanlike manner, despite no formal written contract existing beyond an employee's estimate. The court, presided over by Edward M. Horey, J., found that New York law implies a duty of workmanlike performance for skilled work. The court determined that plaintiffs' employees were deficient in repairs to the kitchen floor, closet door, back entrance door, and kitchen soffit. Applying the measure of damages as the market price to correct the remediable defects, the court awarded defendants $1,850 in damages. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs for a reduced sum of $2,095.84.

Contract DisputeWorkmanlike PerformanceBreach of ContractImplied DutyConstruction DefectsDamages CalculationRemedial WorkNegligenceRenovation DisputeResidential Construction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbarito v. County of Tompkins

Plaintiff Nicholas Barbarito was injured while adjusting a garage door chain at a facility operated by the Tompkins County Highway Department and owned by the County of Tompkins, leading to a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, deeming the activity 'repairing' and finding a proximate cause violation. On appeal, the defendants successfully argued that plaintiff's activity of adjusting a loose garage door chain constituted routine maintenance, not a 'repair' or other enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), which distinguishes activities necessitated by normal wear and tear from covered repairs. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denying plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and granting defendants' motion, thereby dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The court also dismissed the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims, finding that maintenance work is not covered by § 241 (6) and there was no showing that defendants exercised supervisory control or that the dangerous condition arose from anything other than the work's performance.

Labor Law § 240(1)Routine MaintenanceRepair WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIndustrial AccidentGarage Door RepairPersonal InjuryStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

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
Showing 1-10 of 680 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