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. 01-15-00152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way, L.L.C. v. Martinez R.O.W., LLC F/K/A Martinez Investments

Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way, L.L.C. (Appellants) contracted with Southern Brush S.W., Inc., and then subcontracted part of the work to Martinez R.O.W., L.L.C. (Appellee). An employee of Martinez, Bonifacio Gomez, was injured on the job and sued Mullins. Mullins filed a cross-claim against Martinez for indemnity and contribution, arguing Martinez agreed to indemnify Blue Sky and Mullins. Martinez, a workers' compensation subscriber, moved for summary judgment under Tex. Labor Code § 417.004, asserting no written agreement for liability assumption existed. The trial court granted Martinez's summary judgment and denied Mullins' subsequent motions to vacate and amend. This appeal concerns whether the district court properly granted summary judgment, given the absence of a pre-accident written agreement where Martinez assumed Mullins' liability.

Workers' CompensationIndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeExpress Negligence RuleThird-Party LiabilityInsurance CertificateGross NegligenceEmployer Protection
References
32
Case No. 2014-03-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Scarbrough,Jeffrey v. Right Way Recycling, LLC

Jeffrey Scarbrough, an employee of Right Way Recycling, LLC, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing after sustaining an injury while attempting to move a trackhoe. The employer denied the claim, asserting willful misconduct and that the injury did not arise out of employment duties. The Court found that Mr. Scarbrough's actions, while potentially negligent, did not constitute willful misconduct and furthered the business interests of Right Way Recycling. Therefore, his injury was deemed to have arisen primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. The Court ordered Right Way Recycling, LLC to pay for Mr. Scarbrough's medical care and temporary total disability benefits for the period from July 24, 2014, to September 24, 2014.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryExpedited HearingWillful MisconductScope of EmploymentTemporary Total DisabilityMedical BenefitsPanel of PhysiciansAffirmative DefenseEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. 2014-03-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2015

Scarbrough, Jeffrey v. Right Way Recycling, LLC

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where employee Jeffrey Scarbrough sustained injuries after falling from an excavator at Right Way Recycling, LLC. The employer denied the claim, citing the injury did not primarily arise out of employment and willful misconduct. The trial court ruled for the employee, ordering medical benefits and temporary disability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence that the employee would likely prevail on compensability and that the employer failed to prove willful misconduct. The Board concluded that the employee's actions were within the scope of employment and found no established safety rule or bona fide enforcement to support the willful misconduct defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Interlocutory AppealWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExcavator AccidentWillful Misconduct DefenseCourse and Scope of EmploymentTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits OrderEmployer LiabilityEmployee Injury ClaimTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claims of Lee v. Eastern Freight Ways, Inc.

Eastern Freight Ways and Eastern Express, both self-insured employers, faced bankruptcy and had outstanding workers' compensation claims. They were covered by various surety bonds which stipulated continuing responsibility for obligations arising both before and during the bond's term, with limited termination rights for future claims. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the surety active at the time of the accident was liable, especially when multiple sureties covered a single claim. Appellants argued this ruling conflicted with Workers' Compensation Law § 50, which they claimed did not differentiate between surety bonds and posted securities. However, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, reasoning that the statute's primary goal is to ensure financial resources for compensation, the bond language established clear overlapping liability, and there's a fundamental distinction between tangible securities and a surety's financial guarantee.

Workers' CompensationSelf-insured EmployerSurety BondsBankruptcyOverlapping LiabilityStatutory InterpretationInsurance LawFinancial ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
1
Case No. 2015-1088 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Indem. Ins. Co.

In this no-fault benefits case, Healthy Way Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Erole Isma, appealed an order granting summary judgment to 21st Century Indemnity Ins. Co. The Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's decision, which dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was untimely and that the defendant's submitted automobile insurance policy lacked a proper certificate of conformity. The Appellate Term found the motion timely, noting that the initial service was within the statutory period, and determined that the absence of a certificate of conformity was a non-fatal defect, as the plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice. Consequently, the court upheld the defendant's right to deduct a $200 personal injury protection deductible from the payments to the plaintiff.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsInsurance DeductibleTimeliness of MotionCertificate of ConformityAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureKings County Civil CourtAssigned BenefitsAutomobile Insurance
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. No. 8
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Ersin Konkur v. Utica Academy of Science Charter School

Plaintiff Ersin Konkur, a math teacher, sued his former employer, Utica Academy of Science Charter School, and High Way Education, Inc. (doing business as Turkish Cultural Center), alleging he was coerced into making 'kickback' payments from his wages in violation of Labor Law § 198-b. The central legal question on appeal was whether Labor Law § 198-b contains an implied private right of action for employees. The New York Court of Appeals concluded that the legislature did not intend to create such a freestanding private right of action, highlighting the existing robust enforcement mechanisms available through criminal prosecution and administrative action by the Labor Commissioner. Consequently, the Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against High Way Education, Inc. was affirmed.

Wage KickbacksImplied Private Right of ActionLabor LawNew York Court of AppealsEmployment LawStatutory InterpretationEnforcement MechanismsWage ClaimsAdministrative EnforcementCriminal Prosecution
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 10,926 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