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. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. 2017-04-0074
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

Adamczyk, Adam v. Prospect, Inc.

Ms. Adamczyk, a caregiver for Prospect, Inc., sought workers' compensation for a mid-back injury sustained on January 23, 2017, while working at a client's cluttered home. Despite conflicting accounts regarding the incident and delayed reporting, the Court found Ms. Adamczyk likely to prevail on the merits, establishing that her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The Court granted her request for medical benefits, ordering Prospect to cover past and future reasonable medical treatment, including an orthopedic referral. However, her request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence of duration, though she may request them later. The Court also referred the matter to the Compliance unit for potential penalties due to Prospect's failure to provide crucial medical records during mediation.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingMid-Back InjuryThoracic Back StrainCausationPre-existing ConditionEmployee TestimonyEmployer InvestigationMedical Records DisputeCompliance Referral
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01782 [226 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2024

Nunez v. SY Prospect LLC

Plaintiff Arlender Nunez successfully moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant SY Prospect LLC. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder while performing work, asserting SY Prospect LLC failed to provide necessary safety devices. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case that his injuries were proximately caused by a Labor Law violation. Defendants failed to present evidence to rebut this or to support a 'recalcitrant worker defense'. The Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Ladder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseConstruction AccidentUnsecured LadderBuilding Owner LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. 08-11-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2014

Maria G. Thompson/Luis Marioni, D.C. v. Jaime Stolar, M.D., Alivio Medical Center, Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. and Luis Marioni, D.C./Maria G. Thompson

This multi-party appeal originated from a medical and chiropractic malpractice lawsuit filed by Maria G. Thompson against Dr. Jaime Stolar, Dr. Luis Marioni, and Alivio Medical Center and Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. Thompson alleged negligence resulting in severe knee injuries, including infection and fusions, following injections and treatment. A jury found Dr. Stolar and Dr. Marioni negligent, awarding damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Dr. Marioni due to insufficient evidence of causation but affirmed the judgment against Dr. Stolar. The court also upheld the denial of Thompson's claims regarding damages and apparent agency against Alivio.

Medical MalpracticeChiropractic MalpracticeKnee InjuryKnee InfectionSpontaneous FusionSurgical FusionNegligenceCausationDamages AssessmentApparent Agency
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. Prospect Associates, L.P.

Plaintiff Luis Reynoso, an employee, sustained injuries when an interior staircase collapsed during demolition work at a building owned by defendant Prospect Associates, L.P. and for which defendant Flintlock Construction, Inc. was the general contractor. Reynoso filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. Defendants disputed whether Reynoso was authorized to be in the building and the nature of the work he was performing, as demolition was not officially scheduled. The Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that issues regarding plaintiff's authorization and the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the staircase must be resolved at trial.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentStaircase CollapseDemolition Work InjuryWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityAuthorization DisputeFactual DisputesAppellate AffirmationConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00832 [125 AD3d 435]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Matter of Prospect Park E. Network v. New York State Homes & Community Renewal

This case involves an appeal regarding a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction aimed at halting work and public financing for a project until a further environmental review is conducted. Petitioners, including Prospect Park East Network, sought to annul a negative declaration of environmental impact issued by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that HFA properly identified and thoroughly reviewed environmental concerns, providing a reasoned basis for its determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts. The court also found that any misclassification of the project as a Type I action was a harmless error since the appropriate review procedures were followed. Additionally, the court noted that HFA's financing impact was slight because the project could proceed without its funding.

Environmental ReviewPreliminary InjunctionNegative DeclarationHousing Finance AgencySEQRAType I ActionHarmless ErrorAppellate DivisionArticle 78Urban Development
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07470 [176 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Kluge v. Town of Tonawanda

In 1997, James Kluge, a police officer, sustained work-related injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification. In 2017, his treating physician requested authorization for medical marihuana to treat chronic pain, which was initially denied by the employer's carrier. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the variance, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, stating that a variance could not be approved for treatment already rendered. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, agreeing that a variance cannot cover past treatment but remitting the matter to the Board to consider the merits of Kluge's request for *prospective* medical marihuana treatment.

Chronic PainMedical MarihuanaWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVariance RequestPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Treatment GuidelinesProspective TreatmentRemittalAppellate ReviewTreating Physician
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,398 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