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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01290 [180 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2020

Reyes v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The case involved plaintiff Felipe Reyes, a special employee of The Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond, whose Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed based on Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The court also denied summary judgment on St. Raymond's third-party contractual indemnification claim against ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, Inc., due to an unresolved issue of fact regarding ABM's negligence. The decision concluded that Reyes's claim against St. Raymond was barred due to his special employee status.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Contractual IndemnificationThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityNegligence
References
2
Case No. 03-12-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

This case originated from a dispute over severance pay in an employment agreement. Raymond Bloch sought $95,000 in severance pay from SAVR Communications, Inc. and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission initially denied his claim, interpreting a 1998 rule under the Texas Payday Act. The district court reversed the TWC's decision, deeming the 1998 rule invalid, and awarded Bloch the $95,000. However, the district court dismissed Bloch's claim for attorney's fees due to res judicata, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Payday Act does not provide for fee-shifting.

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pixley v. Raymond Corp.

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under Executive Law section 298 to challenge an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated May 4, 1977. This order had affirmed an earlier decision by the State Division of Human Rights, which dismissed the petitioner's sex discrimination complaint against Raymond Corporation for lack of probable cause. The petitioner alleged that she was denied the option of a voluntary layoff offered to male employees and was required to perform work in a more difficult manner. Both the Division and the Appeal Board found no probable cause, determining that the petitioner was offered the layoff option but refused due to unemployment benefit concerns, and that male workers performed similar tasks. This court reviewed the record and concluded that the dismissal was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, thus upholding the previous findings without requiring a formal hearing. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationProbable CauseAdministrative ReviewVoluntary LayoffWork TransferTerminationHuman Rights LawAbuse of DiscretionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. E2020-01116-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2021

State of Tennessee v. Raymond Brandon Saffles

The Defendant, Raymond Brandon Saffles, appealed a restitution order related to an arson conviction in Monroe County. The trial court had ordered Saffles to pay $99,017.78 in restitution at $50 per month over his six-year probation, despite evidence of his severe disabilities and reliance on Social Security benefits. Saffles argued the restitution amount was unreasonable given his inability to pay and that his Social Security benefits were exempt from court-ordered collection under 42 U.S.C. § 407(a). The appellate court reversed the restitution order, finding the trial court abused its discretion by not making appropriate findings on the victim's pecuniary loss or Saffles's financial resources, and by setting a restitution amount he could not reasonably pay within his probationary period. The case was remanded for a new restitution hearing, with instructions to correct clerical errors in the judgment regarding the probation term, but affirmed that the restitution order itself did not violate 42 U.S.C. § 407(a) as "other legal process."

ArsonRestitutionSocial Security BenefitsProbation RevocationAbility to PayPecuniary LossAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCivil JudgmentDisability
References
33
Case No. 14-03-00412-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2003

Johnson, Raymond Lee v. State

Raymond Lee Johnson appealed his felony conviction for tampering with a witness, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. Johnson, an MTA employee, offered a co-worker $300 to drop an assault charge and later attempted to have him sign an affidavit and mutual release, which the co-worker refused. The trial court found Johnson guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court found ample evidence supporting Johnson's intent to influence the witness, based on testimonies from the co-worker and a detective, despite Johnson's claims of offering money for inconvenience.

Witness tamperingFelony convictionSufficiency of evidenceCriminal appealAssaultIntent to influenceProspective witnessTrial court verdictCredibilityJudgment affirmed
References
7
Case No. 11-03-00392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2005

Raymond L. Williams v. McGuire Industries, Inc.

Raymond L. Williams filed a personal injury action against McGuire Industries, Inc., alleging negligence. McGuire successfully moved for summary judgment, contending that Williams was a borrowed employee and thus his claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Williams appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court found that McGuire's foreman had the right to direct and control Williams's work, establishing him as a borrowed employee. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, confirming that Williams's claims against McGuire are barred by the TWCA.

Borrowed Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentTexas Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyNegligence ClaimPersonal InjuryAppellate Court DecisionRight to ControlEmployer-Employee RelationshipTexas Labor Law
References
14
Case No. 2020-03-0904
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Pridgen, Raymond v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC

This appeal concerns an employee, Raymond Pridgen, who sustained shoulder and back injuries after being startled by an opossum while waiting for a ride in a designated break area after his shift at Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC. The employer denied compensability and permanent total disability benefits, asserting the injury did not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment. The trial court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, found the injury compensable, and awarded permanent total disability benefits. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the injury occurred within a reasonable interval of his shift ending, satisfying the course and scope of employment requirement, and that the evidence supported the finding of permanent total disability.

Permanent Total DisabilityCompensabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentPremises RulePersonal Comfort DoctrineRotator Cuff InjuryShoulder InjuryBack InjuryOpossum IncidentVocational Disability
References
13
Case No. 14-12-01048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2013

Raymond L. Brooks v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Raymond L. Brooks appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear), which was based on Goodyear's exclusive-remedy affirmative defense under the Texas Labor Code. Brooks, an employee of Qualitech Maintenance, Inc. working at a Goodyear facility, sustained work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from Qualitech's policy. He subsequently sued Goodyear for negligence, prompting Goodyear to argue it was his "statutory employer." Goodyear provided evidence that it had a written agreement to reimburse Qualitech for workers' compensation insurance premiums for Qualitech employees at Goodyear facilities, and it fulfilled this obligation. Citing HCBeck, Ltd., v. Rice, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Goodyear conclusively established its "statutory employer" status and entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeContractual ReimbursementNegligence ClaimAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityQualitech Maintenance
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04412
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Aprile-Sci v. St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church

Kathleen Aprile-Sci, a volunteer Eucharistic Minister, allegedly tripped and fell at St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determined her injury was work-related and she was entitled to benefits, a decision she did not object to. Subsequently, Aprile-Sci and her husband commenced a personal injury action against the church. The church moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the WCB's final and conclusive determination barred a collateral attack in a plenary action.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer StatusPersonal Injury ClaimWCB DeterminationCollateral AttackTriable Issues of FactDiocese Insurance
References
13
Case No. M2015-00944-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2016

State of Tennessee v. John G. Apfel aka Raymond Debartolomies

John G. Apfel, also known as Raymond DeBartolomies, appealed his conviction for theft of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 and his four-year sentence. The appellant fraudulently received Supplemental Security Income (S.S.I.) benefits from 2009 to 2011 by using the identity of a deceased person, claiming an earlier birth date to qualify for age-based benefits despite not being old enough. He argued insufficient evidence and an improper denial of alternative sentencing, citing his potential eligibility for disability benefits and his old convictions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence of deception and no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision.

Theft by DeceptionSocial Security FraudIdentity MisrepresentationCriminal AppealSentencing GuidelinesRestitution OrderPrior ConvictionsSufficiency of EvidenceDirect AppealJudicial Discretion
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 184 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