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

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Case No. 13-06-575-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2008

Pokorne Private Capital Group, LLC v. 21st Mortgage Corp. & Nella Investments, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting no-evidence motions for summary judgment in favor of 21st Mortgage Corporation and Nella Investments, Inc., and denying a cross-motion by Pokorne Private Capital Group, LLC. The dispute centers on the priority of conflicting security interests in a manufactured home located in Williamson County. Pokorne argued that its purchase-money security interest had priority once the home was declared real property. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that 21st Mortgage had a perfected security interest in the home, which was recorded chronologically before Pokorne's, and that Sedona's real property election filing was defective. The court also found that 21st Mortgage was entitled to self-help repossession as the senior lienholder.

manufactured homessecurity interestsinventory lienpurchase-money security interestsummary judgmentTexas lawreal propertypersonal propertyrepossessionUCC
References
27
Case No. W2014-02286-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2016

Kim Hardy v. Tournament Players Club at Southwind, Inc., d/b/a TPC Southwind,

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal to determine if an employee has a private right of action against an employer under the Tennessee Tip Statute (Tenn. Code Ann. section 50-2-107) for improper tip payment. The trial court initially dismissed the employee's claim, finding no such private right. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, relying on its prior 1998 holding in *Owens v. University Club of Memphis*. The Supreme Court found that the *Owens* decision was inconsistent with its subsequent jurisprudence on implying private rights of action, particularly in *Brown* and *Premium Finance*. Consequently, the Court declined to apply the doctrine of legislative inaction and held that no private right of action exists under section 50-2-107. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

Private Right of ActionTennessee Tip StatuteWage RegulationEmployee CompensationImplied Cause of ActionLegislative InactionStatutory InterpretationClass ActionMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. 03-13-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC v. Tom Green County Appraisal District

This case concerns an appeal by AETC II Privatized Housing, LLC (AETC) against the Tom Green County Appraisal District regarding a property tax exemption. AETC, a public-private venture providing multi-family housing for U.S. Military personnel, sought an exemption from property taxes on certain improvements located on leased land adjacent to Goodfellow Air Force Base, arguing either public ownership by the U.S. or its status as a federal instrumentality. The trial court denied AETC's motion for summary judgment and granted the Appraisal District's. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that AETC did not meet its summary judgment burden of establishing the improvements were exempt from ad valorem taxes. The court emphasized that the U.S., as a member of the LLC formed under Delaware law, had no interest in the specific property owned by the LLC, thus negating the claim of governmental ownership for tax exemption purposes.

Property Tax ExemptionMilitary Housing Privatization InitiativeSummary JudgmentAd Valorem TaxesEquitable TitleFederal JurisdictionLimited Liability CompanyGovernmental ImmunityTexas Appellate LawReal Property Taxation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Female Infant K.

This case involves an application in a private placement adoption proceeding to designate a certified social worker, Mary Helen Evans, as a disinterested person to conduct the postplacement investigation as required by Domestic Relations Law § 116. Judge Edward M. Kaufmann denied the application, stating that Ms. Evans was not found by the court to be qualified for postplacement investigations, despite being statutorily qualified for preplacement investigations. The court emphasized the need for an impartial, unbiased, and independent investigator with uniform methodology, highlighting that the Family Court Probation Service is statutorily qualified by training and experience for postplacement investigations. Consequently, the Family Court Probation Service was ordered to conduct the investigation.

Adoption LawPostplacement InvestigationPreplacement InvestigationDisinterested PersonCertified Social WorkerFamily CourtProbation ServiceJudicial DiscretionChild WelfareStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Male D.

The court addressed a motion by petitioning adoptive parents to dispense with the appearance of the child’s natural parents in a private-placement adoption proceeding. The motion was denied due to concerns regarding whether the natural parents' extrajudicial consents were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given. The court highlighted the absence of independent legal advice for the natural parents and the conflict of interest with the adoptive parents' attorney acknowledging consents. Furthermore, the court found non-compliance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, as the child was brought from Connecticut to New York without proper approval. The petitioners were directed to obtain the natural parents' testimony and to seek Compact approval forthwith.

Private AdoptionParental ConsentDue ProcessInterstate CompactAdoption LawNew York LawConnecticut ResidentsLegal RepresentationConflict of InterestJudicial Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Baby Girl B.

This case involves a private placement adoption proceeding where the biological mother initially consented to the adoption of her child born on May 16, 1988. She later revoked her consent after her parents became aware of the birth. The unwed putative father also did not sign a consent. The biological parents alleged the mother's consent was invalid due to non-compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 115-b and was obtained by fraud and duress. They also claimed improper placement under Social Services Law § 374 (2) and § 371 (12). The court found the consent valid and freely given, and the child's placement compliant with the law, denying the motion to vacate consent and dismiss the adoption petition.

Private Placement AdoptionParental ConsentRevocation of ConsentFraud and DuressChild PlacementSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawBest Interests of ChildSurrogate CourtNew York Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Offshore Exploration & Production LLC v. Morgan Stanley Private Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff, Offshore Exploration and Production, LLC (Offshore), initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment that Morgan Stanley, acting as an Escrow Agent, must release over $75 million from an escrow fund to defendants Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC) and Ecopetrol S.A. An arbitration panel had previously ordered Offshore to pay this amount to KNOC and Ecopetrol. However, KNOC and Ecopetrol argued the payment should come directly from Offshore to preserve the escrow fund for other obligations, contending that this dispute falls under the arbitration clause of their Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA). The defendants moved to stay or dismiss the action pending arbitration, while Offshore cross-moved for summary judgment. The court, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring international arbitration, found that the SPA's broad arbitration clause, which incorporated the American Arbitration Association's International Arbitration Rules, clearly delegated issues of arbitrability to the arbitration panel. The court rejected Offshore's arguments that the dispute arose solely under the Escrow Agreement or that a conflict existed between the SPA's mandatory arbitration clause and the Escrow Agreement's permissive forum selection clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to stay the action, pending the arbitration panel's decision on arbitrability and the merits, and denied Offshore's motion for summary judgment without prejudice.

ArbitrationInternational ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsDeclaratory JudgmentContract DisputeEscrow AgreementStock Purchase AgreementArbitrabilityForum SelectionFederal Arbitration Act
References
20
Case No. 2018-03-1494
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2021

Stephens, Tonya v. Quality Private Care d/b/a Volunteer Staffing, Inc.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer declined to authorize a spinal cord stimulator trial for the employee, arguing it was contraindicated due to a diagnosed psychological condition and not medically necessary according to their expert. The trial court sided with the treating physicians, ordering the employer to authorize the treatment. The employer appealed, asserting the trial court erred in ordering treatment that purportedly fell outside the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) and that it could not be held liable for such costs. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, emphasizing that ODG are guidelines, not rigid mandates, and that a physician's recommended treatment is presumed medically necessary, a presumption the employer failed to rebut. The Board concluded that the trial court's weighing of expert medical proof was supported by the evidence.

Medical Treatment AuthorizationSpinal Cord Stimulator TrialComplex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)Official Disability Guidelines (ODG)Medical Necessity DisputePsychological Evaluation FindingsSomatic Symptom DisorderAuthorized Treating Physician's RecommendationInterlocutory AppealAppeals Board Affirmation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 612 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