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

Willis v. Titan Contractors Corp.

The appellant, an employee of Titan Contractors, sustained personal injuries when he slipped on a skiff in the Houston Ship Channel. He filed a lawsuit under the Jones Act, claiming seaman status, but a jury found he was not a seaman and attributed 50% comparative negligence to him. The appellant sought to recover damages under the unseaworthiness doctrine and the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing several points of error on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, rejecting all of appellant's contentions, including claims of seaman status as a matter of law, erroneous jury instructions, unseaworthiness, and recovery under the LHWCA. The court also found no error in the admission of certain evidence or the lack of submission regarding maintenance and cure.

Jones ActSeaman StatusPersonal InjuryContributory NegligenceUnseaworthinessLongshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMaritime LawTexas
References
30
Case No. 2015-06-0093
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2015

Sanabria, Bessy vs. Santiago Zelaya and Summit Contractors Group, Inc.

Bessy Sanabria, an employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking temporary disability and medical benefits from Summit Contractors Group, Inc. following a workplace accident on July 31, 2014. Ms. Sanabria injured her left foot when she fell from a ladder at a construction site where Summit was the principal contractor, and her direct employer, Santiago Zelaya, failed to provide workers' compensation insurance. Summit contended Ms. Sanabria had waived her right to recover benefits. The Court, reviewing the case file, found Ms. Sanabria established she would likely prevail, determining that Summit, as the principal contractor, was liable for the benefits. The Court ordered Summit to provide medical treatment and pay $10,182.86 in past due temporary disability benefits to Ms. Sanabria for the period from August 1, 2014, to January 8, 2015.

Workplace InjuryTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsPrincipal Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor InsuranceExpedited HearingCalcaneal FractureLadder FallConstruction Site AccidentWage Determination
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04681
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Fidler v. Gordon-Herricks Corp.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning a personal injury action filed by Robert Fidler against Gordon-Herricks Corp. and F. Pinheiro Contractor Corp. Fidler appealed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant F. Pinheiro Contractor Corp. The Supreme Court had previously granted summary judgment to other defendants, citing the "law of the case" doctrine for Pinheiro. The Appellate Division found the "law of the case" doctrine inapplicable to Pinheiro, as the prior dismissals were based on grounds specific to the other defendants. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Pinheiro, concluding that Pinheiro, as a third-party contractor, owed no duty to the plaintiff and did not "launch a force or instrument of harm."

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionLaw of the Case DoctrineThird-Party ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty (Tort Law)Workers' CompensationNassau CountyLoading Dock Ramp
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. appealed a Circuit Court judgment that granted workmen's compensation and medical expenses to Allen B. Lytle. The core issue was whether Lytle, a brick washer, was an employee or an independent contractor when he suffered an injury due to a scaffold collapse. The trial court deemed Lytle an employee, citing the defendant's right to control and terminate. However, the appellate court applied multiple tests, including control over work, method of payment (per job/thousand bricks), and who furnished tools and helpers. The Supreme Court found that Lytle largely operated independently, supplying his materials and labor, with limited supervision from Cromwell. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, classifying Lytle as an independent contractor, and dismissed the compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusScaffold AccidentBrick CleaningControl TestRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. 2000 WL 178191
Regular Panel Decision

Selby v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

Adrian and Jill Selby sued Principal Life Insurance Company, alleging various errors in processing their health insurance claims. They challenged Principal's interpretation of an infertility treatment exclusion and its claims review procedures under ERISA. The court considered motions for class certification for four proposed classes. Class I, addressing Principal's online claims review process for altering diagnoses, was certified. Classes II and III, concerning medically necessary infertility treatments and New York Insurance Law violations respectively, were not certified for class-wide adjudication, though individual claims were permitted. Class IV, challenging the sufficiency of claim denial letters, was not certified immediately due to the named plaintiffs' lack of standing for injunctive relief, but conditional certification was offered upon identification of a new suitable plaintiff.

ERISAClass ActionHealth InsuranceClaims DenialInfertility ExclusionOnline ReviewMedical BenefitsStandingFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Benefit Plans
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manis v. AMERICAN CABLE SYSTEMS OF TENNESSEE

This is a personal injury action where an employee of Telecom Systems, Inc. was injured by an electrical shock while working on a utility pole, stringing cable lines for American Cable Systems of Tennessee (ACS). The plaintiff seeks relief based on alleged negligence, but ACS argues it was a 'principal contractor' in its relationship with Telecom, making it immune from a tort suit under Tennessee worker's compensation law (T.C.A. § 50-6-113). The Court reconsidered the case in light of Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Telephone Co. (695 S.W.2d 947), which clarified the 'right to control' test for principal contractor status. Upon comparison, the Court found that ACS maintained pervasive overall control over materials, employees, and general work manner, similar to the principal contractor in Stratton. Therefore, ACS was deemed a principal contractor, protecting it from third-party liability, and the motion for summary judgment was granted in its favor.

Personal InjuryWorker's CompensationPrincipal ContractorSubcontractorImmunitySummary JudgmentRight to ControlNegligenceElectrical ShockUtility Pole
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,157 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