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. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lumbermen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. Kaisha

Culver, an injured employee, and his insurer initiated a lawsuit against the owner of the ship Jufuku Maru and the ship itself, seeking damages under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court confirmed that the ship and its owner could be sued as third parties, rejecting the argument that the ship should be considered a statutory employer. However, on the merits, the court determined that the injury was not proximately caused by any negligence of the ship, such as a defective winch or missing bolts for a beam. Instead, the injury resulted directly from the culpably negligent and dangerous work methods voluntarily adopted by Culver's employer and the specific negligence of the gangwayman in operating the winch. Consequently, the claim against the ship was denied, as the ship was wholly exonerated from liability for Culver's injuries.

Longshoremen's ActHarbor Workers' CompensationThird-Party LiabilityShip Owner LiabilityStevedore NegligenceProximate CauseStatutory EmployeeAssigned Cause of ActionMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01436 [192 AD3d 839]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Herman Rodriguez was injured at a construction site owned by HY 38 Owner, LLC, where Monadnock Construction, Inc. was the construction manager. The accident occurred while repairing a plywood gate, when another part of the gate was blown shut by wind, striking him. Rodriguez sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to HY 38 Owner, LLC, and Monadnock Construction, Inc., dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prima facie establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they did not adequately address the premises liability theory of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson Housing Authority v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment action initiated by the Jackson Housing Authority (JHA) to clarify the rights and liabilities of various parties concerning injuries sustained by Ralph Wilson, a participant in the Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) program. Wilson, while working as a painter at JHA facilities, was paid by the Chickasaw Area Development Commission (CADC), which also provided workers’ compensation coverage through Aetna Insurance Company. After Wilson was injured, he collected workers’ compensation from Aetna and filed both a workers’ compensation claim against JHA’s carrier, Travelers, and a common law tort action against JHA. JHA's liability insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, defended the tort action under a reservation of rights, alleging untimely notice. The Chancellor found Wilson to be an employee of CADC, not JHA, for workers’ compensation purposes, and that JHA provided timely notice to Auto-Owners, ordering Auto-Owners to defend JHA. On appeal, the court affirmed the Chancellor's findings regarding Wilson's employment with CADC and JHA's timely notice to Auto-Owners. However, it modified the decision by holding that Wilson was also an apprentice employee of JHA, establishing a joint employment relationship under Tennessee law, based on the interpretation of T.C.A. § 50-6-102.

CETA ProgramJoint EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' CompensationInsurance Coverage DisputeApprentice EmployeeEmployer LiabilityNotice RequirementsStatutory InterpretationTort Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. SFDS Development

A construction worker sustained injuries after falling 20 feet from a roof that unexpectedly collapsed, having not been provided with any safety equipment. The defendants, SFDS Development and San Francisco Houses, Inc., were the building owners. The Supreme Court initially denied the worker's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the owners' cross-motions for common-law indemnification against the worker's employer, Catspaw Construction Corp. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the owners' cross-motions for indemnification, finding that Catspaw had direct control over the worksite.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationElevated WorksiteSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Rice v. West 37th Group, LLC

Plaintiff's decedent, James Rice, a steamfitter, was injured in November 2004 after falling from a short, unsecured ladder while installing a sprinkler system. He commenced an action against the building owner, general contractor, and subcontractor Cord, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Cord and Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims against other defendants, but granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the owner and general contractor. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its decision, finding no readily available adequate safety device to absolve defendants of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and dismissed the appeal regarding spoliation sanctions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawElevation-related injurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesWorker NegligenceAppellate DivisionSpoliation of EvidenceConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06668
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy gang box into a truck. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this decision, denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and reinstating it. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against specific defendants (Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC, Delancey Street Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC), while otherwise affirming the lower court's order. The court also noted a contradiction in pleadings regarding ownership by one of the defendants, Delancey Street Associates, LLC.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionGang Box InjuryConstruction AccidentPleading ContradictionOwner LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02569 [237 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2025

Delcid-Funez v. Seasons at E. Meadow Home Owners Assn.

The plaintiff, Edwin Delcid-Funez, suffered personal injuries after falling approximately 30 feet from a condominium roof while shoveling snow, which he was doing for his employer in response to a leak complaint. He initiated an action against Seasons at East Meadow Home Owners Association, Inc., and Einsidler Management, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both the plaintiff and the defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact remain regarding whether the plaintiff was engaged in an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether his actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSnow ShovelingRoof FallPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityElevated Work SiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,146 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