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

Acklie v. Carrier

Vernon Acklie, an employee of subcontractor Dana Carrier, was severely injured after falling down an elevator shaft while working on the renovation of the Executive Plaza Building. J.R. Smith Oil Company, Inc., the building owner acting as principal contractor, was found liable for worker's compensation benefits to Acklie because Carrier lacked coverage. The Oil Company and its insurer appealed the finding of principal contractor liability and the casual employee argument, while Acklie cross-appealed the disability percentage and average weekly wage calculation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding Smith Oil's liability as a principal contractor, confirming the 80% permanent partial disability, and validating the average weekly wage computation based solely on employment at the time of injury.

Worker's CompensationPrincipal ContractorStatutory EmployerContractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDisability BenefitsAverage Weekly WageConstruction InjuryTennessee Supreme CourtAffirmation of Judgment
References
6
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
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

Vast Construction, LLC v. CTC Contractors, LLC

This opinion addresses a contract dispute between general contractor CTC Contractors and subcontractor Vast Construction. Vast appealed a judgment against it, arguing it did not breach the subcontract, and raised claims under the Texas Property Code's prompt payment and construction trust fund provisions, as well as challenging the award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding that Vast breached the contract by abandoning the project. However, the court sustained Vast's fourth issue, ruling that attorneys' fees were improperly awarded to CTC under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001 because Vast is a limited liability company, not an individual or corporation. The judgment was modified to remove all attorneys' fees for CTC, and affirmed as modified.

Contract disputeSubcontractor breachGeneral contractorTexas Property CodePrompt paymentConstruction Trust Fund ActAttorneys' feesLimited Liability CompanyAppellate courtJudgment modification
References
46
Case No. 2014-05-0003
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2015

Jewell, Kevin v. Cobble Construction & Arcus Restoration

Kevin Jewell, an employee of uninsured subcontractor Cobble Construction, suffered a back injury while lifting a granite slab on a job for principal contractor Arcus Restoration. Both the subcontractor and principal contractor denied the claim, asserting Jewell was an independent contractor and his injury was outside the scope of employment. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found Jewell to be an employee injured during the course and scope of his work, ordering Arcus Restoration, as the principal contractor, to provide medical and temporary disability benefits due to Cobble Construction's lack of insurance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the findings regarding Jewell's employment status, the compensability of his injury, his entitlement to benefits, and Arcus Restoration's liability. The case was subsequently remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorCourse and Scope of EmploymentMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPrincipal Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor UninsuredBack InjuryAppeals Board Decision
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2006

Preldakaj v. Alps Realty of NY Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from an order denying motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Agim and Lush Preldakaj, shareholders and officers of Alps Realty of NY Corp., were injured by an explosion of refinishing chemicals in a building owned by Alps. They sued Alps for negligence and negligent hiring of the independent contractor, Gjelosh Preldakaj. Alps moved for summary judgment arguing independent contractor liability and that principals cannot sue their own corporation. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment on liability, citing Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 (1). The motion court denied both motions, finding questions of fact regarding Alps' negligence and the plaintiffs' roles. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that factual issues remain regarding the extent of the plaintiffs' involvement in the building's maintenance, the independent contractor exception to liability, and the applicability of the Multiple Dwelling Law given the plaintiffs' potential supervisory role.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentCorporate LiabilityIndependent ContractorMultiple Dwelling LawPremises LiabilityShareholder LitigationWorker InjuryAffirmationAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manis v. Erwin Utilities

The plaintiff, an employee of Telecom Systems, Inc., sustained injuries on April 20, 1984, in Unicoi County, Tennessee, while working on cable television lines under a contract between Telecom and American Cable Systems of Tennessee (ACS). The plaintiff initiated a personal injury action against ACS alleging negligence. ACS sought reconsideration of a previously denied motion for summary judgment, arguing it qualified as a 'principal contractor' under Tennessee worker's compensation law, thereby making it immune from third-party liability. Citing the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision in Stratton v. United Inter-Mountain Telephone Co., which focused on the 'right to control' as a determinant for principal contractor status, the Court analyzed the contract between ACS and Telecom. The Court found that ACS maintained pervasive control over the work, similar to the scenario in Stratton. Consequently, ACS was deemed a principal contractor, entitling it to immunity from the plaintiff's tort claim. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Summary JudgmentPrincipal ContractorSubcontractorWorker's CompensationNegligence ActionPersonal InjuryRight to ControlThird-Party LiabilityContract LawImmunity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Canterbury Corp.

This workers' compensation appeal addressed the liability of Canterbury Corporation, a developer, for injuries sustained by Travis E. Brown, an employee of its uninsured subcontractor, Cofer Construction Co. Brown sought compensation from Canterbury Corporation after securing a default judgment against his direct employer. The court considered whether Canterbury Corporation, which had fewer than five employees, was exempt from workers' compensation liability and if it acted as a principal contractor, rather than a mere property owner. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that Canterbury Corporation was liable as a principal contractor under T.C.A. § 50-6-113, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect employees of uninsured subcontractors. However, the court found insufficient evidence to justify a lump-sum commutation of Brown's benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings on the payment method, requiring adherence to statutory amendments concerning such awards.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerPrincipal ContractorSubcontractor LiabilitySize Restriction ExemptionLump Sum CommutationConstruction IndustryOn-Site InjuryUninsured SubcontractorRemand
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,766 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