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
Aug 04, 1994

Washington v. New York City Industrial Development Agency

An employee of Par Par Contracting was injured and sued the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA). IDA, insured by National Casualty, then filed a third-party action against Par Par for contribution and indemnification, relying on Par Par's State Insurance Fund coverage. The Supreme Court denied Par Par’s motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, dismissing the third-party action related to National Casualty’s insurance coverage. The dismissal was based on the antisubrogation rule, which prohibits an insurer from pursuing a subrogated action against its own insured for claims covered under the original policy, even if separate insurance policies for common law indemnity exist.

antisubrogation ruleinsurance disputethird-party liabilitysummary judgment motionWorkers' Compensationemployer liabilitycontractual indemnificationcommon law indemnificationappellate reversalNew York law
References
6
Case No. 527540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Chojnowski v. PAR Envtl. Corp.

Claimant, an asbestos handler, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in 2017 for hearing loss, alleging it was due to workplace noise exposure. He stopped working in 2003 and first experienced hearing problems in 2001, consulting a doctor in 2005. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim as untimely, finding the date of disablement was October 19, 2003, and the claim was not filed within two years. The Workers' Compensation Board agreed, determining claimant should have known his hearing loss was work-related by September 14, 2005, when he first sought treatment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, deferring to the Board's credibility determination that claimant had sufficient information in 2005 to know the probable cause of his hearing loss, making his 2017 claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 28 and 49-bb.

Occupational hearing lossAsbestos handlerTimeliness of claimWorkers' Compensation LawDate of disablementKnowledge of occupational diseaseCausal relationshipMedical diagnosisCredibility determinationAppellate review
References
7
Case No. 01-12-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2014

Lani K. White and Charles White v. DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd., F/K/A Deliverance-PAR Services, Ltd.

Lani K. White and Charles White appealed a summary judgment in favor of DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd. (Deliverance). The Whites sued Deliverance alleging negligence after a gas leak from an uncapped line, installed by Deliverance's contractor Patrick Rusk, caused an explosion in their home. Deliverance contended it was not vicariously liable as Rusk was an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment for Deliverance. On appeal, the Whites argued that Rusk's independent contractor agreement was modified by an agreement between Deliverance and MSS, and that extrinsic evidence showed Deliverance controlled Rusk's work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the summary-judgment evidence failed to raise a fact issue regarding Rusk's independent contractor status, applying the Limestone factors to determine the nature of the employment relationship.

Summary JudgmentIndependent Contractor StatusVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceAppellate ReviewContract LawRight to Control TestMaster-Servant RelationshipTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. 02 Civ. 4286, 02 Civ. 4297
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Buttar

Petitioners David Jacaruso, Joseph Scotti, and Michael E. Wallace moved to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of respondents Daljit S. Buttar and Par-amit Buttar. The Buttars cross-moved to confirm the award. The arbitration, conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), found the petitioners liable for misrepresentation, unauthorized trading, and fraud, and also as 'Control Persons,' jointly and severally liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court, applying standards of 'manifest disregard of the law' and 'manifest disregard of the facts,' found that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law by imposing respondeat superior liability on the petitioners for actions of a broker and by finding fraud liability without evidence of intent. Furthermore, the court found the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law and facts regarding control person liability. Consequently, the court granted the petitioners' motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the respondents' cross-motion to confirm it.

arbitrationvacaturconfirmationsecurities fraudcontrol person liabilitymanifest disregard of lawmanifest disregard of factsNASD arbitrationpunitive damagesrespondeat superior
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter

This memorandum opinion on remand addresses a product liability lawsuit filed by Janace M. Carter against BIC Pen Corp. after her daughter, Brittany, suffered severe burns from a BIC cigarette lighter. Initially, a jury found both design and manufacturing defects, leading to an award of actual and exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case for consideration of the manufacturing defect claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding actual damages, concluding that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted, the spoliation instruction was properly given, and there was sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect and causation findings. Conversely, the court reversed and rendered the portion of the judgment awarding exemplary damages, finding insufficient evidence to establish malice on the part of BIC Pen Corp. in the manufacturing process.

Product LiabilityManufacturing DefectFederal PreemptionSpoliation InstructionExemplary DamagesActual DamagesCigarette LighterChild SafetyConsumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)Appellate Review
References
32
Case No. 02-08-00210-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Lourdes Maria Vargas De Damian, Individually, as Next Friend to Nicole Denisse Damian Vargas, and as Representative of the Estate of Demetrio Damian Chen v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Appellants, including family members of deceased pilots and passengers, filed a lawsuit against Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. following a Bell 407 helicopter crash on January 27, 2000, in Panama. The lawsuit alleged strict products liability and negligence, specifically citing design defects in the helicopter's windshield and restraint system. The crash was caused by a black vulture penetrating the windshield, which incapacitated Captain Damian and resulted in fatalities. A jury found a design defect, negligence by both Bell and Captain Damian (50% responsibility each), and awarded damages. The trial court's final judgment was issued on February 28, 2008. On appeal, the court affirmed the portion of the trial court's judgment related to the claims on behalf of Gloria Gasperi's estate. However, it reversed and rendered judgment that other appellants take nothing. The appellate court found no federal preemption, ruled that the Panamanian statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and upheld the sufficiency of evidence for the seatbelt design defect and Captain Damian's comparative negligence. Conversely, the court found insufficient evidence for design defects related to the windshield and door mounts. Claims of juror misconduct were rejected due to legal prohibitions on juror testimony.

Helicopter crashProducts liabilityDesign defectNegligenceFederal preemptionComparative negligenceWrongful death claimsSurvival claimsStatute of limitationsJury misconduct
References
103
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palomino v. Winck

A longshoreman, referred to as the libelant, was injured aboard the respondent's vessel when a wooden crate being lowered caught his right ankle. The libelant claimed the injury was due to unseaworthiness or negligence, specifically implying a defective winch. However, no evidence of a defective winch was presented, nor was expert testimony offered to support the claim. The court distinguished this case from Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., where evidence of a defective winch was provided. Ultimately, the court concluded that the libelant failed to sustain his burden of proof, and thus, the claim was denied.

longshoreman injuryunseaworthinessnegligence claimburden of proofmaritime lawdefective equipmentvessel accidentDistrict Court decisionadmiralty lawlack of evidence
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,343 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