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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This is an action brought by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), and certain individuals against President Nixon and various government officials. The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to deprive them of their rights to participate in the electoral process, and accuse defendants of illegal burglary, mail tampering, and other wrongful activities. Defendants Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mardian moved for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found no factual basis to connect these defendants with alleged tortious acts in New York, such as a burglary, a mail cover, or an FBI Disruption Program. Consequently, the court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to refile if they can establish a jurisdictional basis.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissConspiracyCivil RightsGovernment SurveillanceMail TamperingBurglaryPolitical HarassmentWhite House OfficialsFBI
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees for the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP) and the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) from the Texas Secretary of State. The parties incurred fees defending an election contest lawsuit (Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis's eligibility for the State Senate. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity for such a suit and that the Brimer suit fees were 'in connection with' the primary election, given the broad interpretation of the phrase and the nature of the eligibility challenge. The court reversed the trial court's judgment denying reimbursement, rendered judgment for TCDP and TDP to receive their stipulated attorney's fees, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, including the denial of attorney's fees for the underlying lawsuit due to the Secretary of State's discretionary authority.

Election LawAttorney FeesReimbursementSovereign Immunity WaiverElection ContestCandidate EligibilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureDeclaratory JudgmentUltra Vires Doctrine
References
33
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01354
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order which granted motions to renew filed by third-party plaintiffs Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Michael Boyle, and Tricon Construction, LLC along with C.P. Plaza Limited Partnership. The motions sought to vacate a previous order that had dismissed their third-party claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against AMZ Construction Services, Inc. Upon renewal, these claims were reinstated. The court found that new expert reports submitted by the plaintiff, Robert Deschaine, raised a factual dispute regarding whether he sustained a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically brain injuries that rendered him unemployable in any capacity. This issue of fact justified the renewal and reinstatement of the third-party claims.

Appellate PracticeRenewal MotionSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawBrain InjuriesUnemployabilityProcedural Law
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. 2018-11587 (Index No. 20807/15)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves an appeal from an order in a fourth-party action concerning negligence and breach of contract. Conklin Property, LLC, a fourth-party plaintiff, sued Total Management Corp. and David Lande (appellants), alleging they failed to procure adequate insurance for a construction project after a worker was injured and died, leading to a disclaimer of coverage by the insurer. The Supreme Court denied the appellants' motion to dismiss the fourth-party complaint and granted Conklin's cross-motion to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Conklin sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The court also determined that a special relationship existed between Conklin and the appellants, justifying the addition of a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Furthermore, the court found the actions to be within the statute of limitations, accruing on the date of the worker's injury.

NegligenceBreach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityNegligent MisrepresentationFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsFourth-Party ActionInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02063
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Appellate Division, First Department, considered an appeal concerning a Supreme Court order that granted a motion to sever and stay a second third-party action, and denied a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in severing and staying the second third-party action, citing that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. It further noted that Gateway and Woodworks' subcontracts provided for joint and several liability, allowing for apportionment in a separate proceeding. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting Gateway's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against it. This dismissal was based on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff, Gateway's employer, did not sustain a grave injury.

Appellate PracticeThird-Party ActionsSeverance and StaySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryJoint and Several LiabilitySubcontractor Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 1997

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,515 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