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

Safety Cas. Co. v. Malvoux

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olson v. Pyramid Crossgates Co.

Plaintiff, a mechanic for Pyramid Management Group, Inc., was injured while installing temporary lighting for defendant Pyramid Crossgates Company. He fell after stepping on a plywood platform, not intended as a safety device, which then collapsed. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), claiming the platform was a 'makeshift scaffold'. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing the platform was not a safety device and its use was not necessitated by the work. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the Court modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that the platform was not a safety device and plaintiff failed to establish a need to use it, thus denying plaintiff's motion and granting defendants' cross motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was affirmed, with the § 200 claim being abandoned by the plaintiff.

Labor Law §240(1)Platform CollapseMakeshift ScaffoldElevation-Related RiskSummary Judgment MotionCross MotionAppellate DecisionLiability DeterminationIndustrial Code ViolationsConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cody v. State

The claimant, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an unsecured plywood platform covering a stairwell. He filed an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) by the defendant. The Court of Claims initially found for the defendant, stating the claimant was constructing the platform and failed to prove proximate causation by lack of a safety device. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the unsecured platform itself was an inadequate safety device against elevation-related hazards, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that this violation was a proximate cause of the injury, regardless of the claimant's own conduct, and remitted the matter for a determination of damages.

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevation-Related HazardUnsecured PlatformProximate CauseWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewLiabilitySafety DeviceNegligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernet v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiffs initiated a personal injury lawsuit after George Fernet suffered a work-related fall from an eight-foot platform while working in a building owned by the defendant. They sought partial summary judgment based on Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a lack of proper safety devices. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The appellate court ruled that for platforms less than 20 feet high, the necessity of safety rails is generally a question of fact, especially when there's no evidence of defective scaffolding. Plaintiffs failed to provide proof regarding the necessity of safety devices or that their absence directly caused the injury, thus not establishing a prima facie case for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWork-Related InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtQuestion of FactProximate CauseSafety DevicesConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. M2016-00083-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Vernon Lockhart v. Commissioner of The Tennessee Department of Safety

This appeal arises from a civil forfeiture. Vernon Lockhart was charged and later convicted on a number of criminal counts related to the distribution of large amounts of marijuana. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security declared as forfeited certain of Lockhart's properties alleged to be derived from illegal drug transactions. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the Department by a preponderance of the evidence, a decision which was affirmed on appeal by the Chancery Court for Davidson County. Lockhart appeals to this Court, arguing that the evidence used against him should have been suppressed and that the ALJ and Trial Court erred by failing to conduct an independent analysis of his suppression issue. The Court of Appeals holds that the ALJ's order of forfeiture was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Lockhart from re-litigating the suppression issue. The judgment of the Trial Court upholding the ALJ's forfeiture order is affirmed.

Civil ForfeitureDrug TraffickingCollateral EstoppelSuppression of EvidenceExclusionary RulePreponderance of EvidenceAsset ForfeitureCriminal ConvictionAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. 11-20-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Justin Schrader v. Texas Department of Public Safety

Justin Schrader sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for injuries sustained during his arrest, alleging negligent application of handcuffs and a 'leg sweep' by Trooper Jerry Hale. DPS moved to dismiss the suit, citing sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The trial court granted the dismissal. On appeal, Schrader argued that the TTCA's waiver of immunity applied and that the intentional tort exclusion did not, as Trooper Hale did not intend to injure him. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the gravamen of Schrader's complaint was excessive force—a battery, an intentional tort—which falls under the TTCA's intentional tort exclusion, thus preserving DPS's sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional Tort ExclusionBatteryExcessive ForcePolice MisconductPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunityInterlocutory Appeal
References
29
Case No. NO. 03-08-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2010

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Thomas Williams

Appellee Thomas Williams sued the Texas Department of Public Safety for discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after being involuntarily transferred from the Governor's Protective Detail to the narcotics division. A jury found the Department retaliated against Williams, awarding him back pay, front pay, and damages for mental anguish. The Department appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for an adverse employment action and the monetary awards, and improper admission of an internal affairs report and an EEOC determination letter. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Williams's transfer, which resulted in a substantial loss of overtime and other benefits, constituted a materially adverse employment action. The court also found the jury's back and front pay awards were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

Employment RetaliationRace DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAdverse Employment ActionBack PayFront PayOvertime CompensationEvidentiary RulingsInternal Affairs ReportEEOC Determination Letter
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,657 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