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. 08-20-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Ceci Ibarra v. Noah's Roofing and Construction

This case involves an appeal by Cecilia Ibarra against a judgment favoring Noah’s Roofing & Construction regarding a residential roofing and repairs contract. Ibarra argued that she was discharged from her payment obligations because Noah's Roofing allegedly committed a prior, material breach by performing unworkmanlike work. The trial court, however, found that Ibarra had certified the work as completed to her satisfaction and subsequently materially breached the contract by refusing to pay. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings and conclusions, ultimately affirming the judgment, concluding that Noah's Roofing performed its contractual obligations and Ibarra failed to prove a prior material breach or a breach of implied warranty.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractMaterial BreachWorkmanlike MannerAffirmative DefenseSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTrial Court JudgmentCertification of WorkNon-payment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters v. Roberts

The petitioners, John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters (Schepanski) and Prestige Roofing & Siding Co. (Prestige), sought judicial review of an order from the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, dated November 13, 1986. The original order found Schepanski willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to 19 employees during a roofing project at Suffolk County public schools, resulting in $282,240.46 in underpayments, and assessed a civil penalty of $35,000. Prestige was also held liable for its subcontractor's (Schepanski's) failure. The court granted the petitions and annulled the Commissioner's order, remitting the matter for further proceedings. While acknowledging substantial evidence for willful non-payment and improper record-keeping, the court determined that the respondent's method for calculating underpaid wages and supplements lacked a rational basis. Specifically, the respondent failed to credit Schepanski for some payments made, used an incorrect last day of work, and made an irrational inference about the number of workers present. As a result, the assessed civil penalty must also be reconsidered.

Prevailing WageWage UnderpaymentLabor Law ViolationCivil PenaltyJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubcontractor LiabilityRecord KeepingRational BasisRemittal
References
6
Case No. E2006-0263-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2007

Parris Roofing & Sheetmetal Co. v. SCR Electric, Inc.

Parris Roofing & Sheetmetal Co. (Plaintiff) sued SCR Electric, Inc. (Defendant) for payment for work installing pitch pans on a school roof, following an alleged agreement. The Trial Court found no enforceable contract but awarded Plaintiff $3,613.50 in quantum meruit, determining Plaintiff provided valuable services from which Defendant benefited. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the calculation of the reasonable value of the work and the disregard of expert testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's decision, deferring to its credibility findings. The appellate court noted that the benefit to Defendant for the re-routing work was $1,800, an amount Defendant could have achieved by an alternative method.

Quantum MeruitContract DisputeSubcontractorConstruction ProjectReasonable ValueAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationBenefit ConferredChancery CourtTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04897
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Bund v. Higgins

Plaintiff Ronald Bund, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working for Raymond M. Devore, who was hired by defendants David P. Higgins and Linda M. Higgins to install a roof on their single-family home. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were exempt from Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) liability as one-family dwelling owners who did not direct or control the work. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that defendants, despite acting as general contractors by obtaining permits and purchasing materials, did not supervise or control the method and manner of plaintiff's work, as evidenced by their non-presence during the roofing work and Devore's responsibility for worker safety. The court also concluded that defendants were not liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 because the alleged dangerous condition arose from the contractor's methods, and defendants exercised no supervisory control. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment was reversed, and the complaint against David P. Higgins and Linda M. Higgins was dismissed.

Labor Law ExemptionOne-Family Dwelling OwnersSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceRoofing AccidentConstruction InjuryOwner LiabilityAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 06-24-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Jennifer Cambas and Lawrence Cambas v. Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC

Jennifer and Lawrence Cambas (Appellants) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC (Appellee) from the 57th District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Cambases had hired Trinity for water damage repairs and later requested voluntary upgrades and a roof repair. Disputes arose regarding the completion timeframe and quality of work, leading to the Cambases stopping payments and Trinity suing for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The Cambases counterclaimed for various contract and fraud-related issues. The jury found that the Cambases materially breached the written contract first, Trinity substantially performed, and awarded Trinity damages for breach of contract and quantum meruit for the oral agreement. On appeal, the Cambases challenged the sufficiency of evidence for breach, Trinity's right to recovery, quantum meruit recovery, and attorney fees. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, Trinity's right to recovery was not barred, quantum meruit recovery was not barred, and Trinity was entitled to attorney fees.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubstantial PerformanceMaterial BreachAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewTexas LawConstruction ContractHome Renovation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. 01-23-00791-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2025

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino v. Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC; Anderson Morrision Roofing, LLC; Shawn Morrision; And Morrision Roofing, LLC

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino, an employee, sued his employer Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC and affiliates for negligence after falling off a roof. Lopez alleged his employer failed to provide workers' compensation insurance and necessary safety equipment, leading to his injury. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Lopez was aware of the danger and possessed the needed equipment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that an employee's awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate the employer's duty to provide safe instrumentalities, especially for a nonsubscribing employer. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employer breached its duty.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberLadder AccidentRoofing IndustryDuty to Provide Safe Equipment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. 2017-01-0228
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2017

Ducros, James v. Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., Inc.

The employee, James Ducros, a truck driver, injured his right wrist while working for Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., Inc. The employer initially directed him to a family physician and then to a hand specialist, Dr. Woodfin Kennedy. After Dr. Kennedy recommended diagnostic testing, the employer provided a panel of physicians and insisted the employee select a new treating physician, which he did under perceived duress, choosing Dr. Peter Lund. When Dr. Lund suggested a second opinion and Ducros wanted to return to Dr. Kennedy, the employer refused. The trial court denied Ducros's request to have Dr. Kennedy designated as his authorized treating physician. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer failed to timely meet its statutory obligation to provide a panel of physicians, thus remaining responsible for treatment with Dr. Kennedy.

Workers' Compensation AppealEmployer Medical PanelEmployee Physician ChoiceTimely Panel ProvisionAuthorized Treating PhysicianMedical Treatment DisputesRight Wrist SprainEmployer Non-ComplianceCoercion in Physician SelectionDr. Kennedy
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 10,503 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