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. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kaplan v. Zodiac Watch Co.

Judge Bergan, in a dissenting opinion, argues against the strict interpretation of the 'personal acts' rule in Workers' Compensation cases, especially when an employee is assigned to work far from home. He contends that injuries sustained during personal activities, such as getting dressed to continue an employment-related journey, should be compensable, drawing parallels to cases where recreational activities or similar personal acts were covered. Bergan cites several precedents where employees working away from home were granted compensation for injuries incurred during activities that could be considered 'personal'. He emphasizes that an employer sending a worker far from their normal environment should bear the risk of injury in necessary personal activities. The order, however, was reversed, indicating a majority opinion that did not align with Bergan's dissenting view.

Workers' CompensationPersonal Acts DoctrineCourse of EmploymentDissenting OpinionForeign AssignmentTravelEmployee InjuryCompensabilityPremises RuleRisk of Injury
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dinkins v. Farley

This case addresses a question of first impression regarding employer liability under respondeat superior for an employee's accident while driving to a tuition-subsidized class. The plaintiff sustained personal injuries in an accident involving an automobile operated by Victor F. Farley, an employee of Xerox Corporation, who was driving to a class funded by Xerox's tuition aid program. The plaintiff sought to hold Xerox liable, arguing Victor was acting within the scope of his employment. The court analyzed the nature of the tuition aid program, emphasizing the primary personal benefit to the employee, lack of employer control over travel, and the contingent nature of the tuition reimbursement. Ultimately, the court determined that Victor's activity was not sufficiently connected to his employment to invoke respondeat superior, granting Xerox's motion to dismiss and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Respondeat SuperiorScope of EmploymentTuition Aid ProgramPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCPLR 3211CPLR 3212Automobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityEmployee Education
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. M/V GULF SUPPLIER

Peter Schwartz, a seismic gun mechanic, was recruited by Seistech Offshore to work in Texas and was subsequently injured in Ingleside, Texas, during the outfitting of a vessel. Schwartz filed an admiralty tort case against Seistech Offshore, Geo Marine Limited, and Petro-Tech Peruana, S.A., alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and other claims. Seistech Offshore moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient contacts with Texas. The Court denied Seistech's motion, finding that specific jurisdiction existed because Seistech purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in Texas. The Court also concluded that requiring Seistech to litigate in Texas comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Additionally, the Court held that Seistech had waived its personal jurisdiction defense by asserting it in a dilatory manner on the eve of trial.

Personal JurisdictionAdmiralty LawTort LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessSafe Place to WorkLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActGross NegligenceMotion to DismissDue Process
References
17
Case No. 03-94-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1996

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation v. Barbara Wasiak Tyler Turner Boulo, as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Stanley Wasiak, James Edwin Wingate, Sr. and Jean Wingate Homer Clifton Brownlee, Sr. and Alma Brownlee And Martha Barnes, Individually

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation appealed a trial-court judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to several appellees. The appellees, including Barbara Wasiak and other individuals, suffered wrongful death, personal injury, and loss of consortium due to exposure to "Kaylo," an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Owens-Corning. The case was tried under Alabama substantive law where the asbestos exposures occurred. Owens-Corning raised eleven points of error, challenging the exclusion of testimony regarding its financial condition, arguing that repetitive punitive damage awards violated due process, and contesting certain jury instructions. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's rulings and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the punitive damages were reasonable and consistent with legal objectives.

asbestos litigationproduct liabilitypunitive damagesmass tortdue process challengeAlabama lawTexas appellate procedurejury instructionswrongful deathpersonal injury
References
59
Case No. 05-17-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2018

Ana Arana, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor Arana, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries Edgar Arana, Paola Arana, and Alexander Arana v. K. Hovnanian Homes-DFW, L.L.C.

Victor Arana, a framer, tragically died after falling from a rafter at a construction site managed by K. Hovnanian Homes-DFW, L.L.C. His family filed a lawsuit asserting negligence and negligence per se claims, arguing that Hovnanian owed a duty of care based on control over the work, premises defects, and negligent activity. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hovnanian. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Aranas failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding Hovnanian's duty under theories of control or premises liability, and their argument for negligent activity was not adequately presented for review.

Construction Site SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises Owner DutyNegligence ClaimsWrongful Death LitigationSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Court of AppealsFall AccidentSubcontractor RelationshipOSHA Regulations
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gottlieb v. Merrigan

This case involves an appeal concerning personal jurisdiction over out-of-state attorneys. A New York attorney (plaintiff) initially represented Mark Swanson in a Massachusetts personal injury action. Swanson subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained Massachusetts defendants James M. Merrigan and Rawson, Merrigan & Litner, LLP, who settled the personal injury action. The plaintiff then sought a share of the defendants' fees, claiming a lien. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that the defendants engaged in purposeful activities in New York by negotiating a workers' compensation lien with a New York carrier, which was essential for resolving Swanson’s case and collecting their fees. The court determined that a sufficient relationship existed between these New York activities and the plaintiff's claim to justify further discovery on personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionLong-Arm StatuteCPLR 302(a)(1)Transacting BusinessWorkers' Compensation LienCounsel FeesAttorney FeesInterstate JurisdictionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 5,665 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