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

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. 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. 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. 2019 NY Slip Op 06327 [175 AD3d 1062]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Pelonero v. Sturm Roofing, LLC

Plaintiff Salvatore Pelonero commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Sturm Roofing, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall at a roofing site. The Supreme Court granted Pelonero's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion. The court found that Pelonero failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether he was a worker and whether Sturm Roofing, LLC was an owner or contractor liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Conflicting statements about how the accident occurred also raised an issue of fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked the necessary specific Industrial Code violations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentRoofing WorkCredibility IssueProximate CauseSafety DevicesIndustrial CodeCommon-Law Negligence
References
21
Case No. M1999-01272-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2001

Project Creation, Inc. v. Kenneth Neal

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed on Project Creation, Inc. and Sean Meek after their libel lawsuit was dismissed. The original libel action was filed against neighbors who wrote a letter to a local newspaper opposing Project Creation's proposed 'Ark Museum and Dinosaur Park' project, alleging deception and misleading statements related to zoning. The trial court found the libel action was filed for an improper purpose and lacked factual support under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11, awarding the defendants $9,262.90 in attorney fees and expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to impose sanctions, holding that an objective reasonableness standard applies to represented parties, even if they did not sign the offending document. However, the appellate court vacated the monetary award, remanding the case for a recalculation of sanctions to include only those fees and costs directly resulting from the libel lawsuit, not from the intertwined zoning dispute.

Rule 11 SanctionsLibel LawsuitImproper PurposeLack of Factual SupportAttorney FeesLitigation CostsObjective Reasonableness StandardNonsigning Party LiabilityZoning DisputeFreedom of Speech
References
24
Case No. 04-01-00723-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2003

Cram Roofing Co., Inc. v. Dennis J. Parker

Cram Roofing Company appealed the trial court's judgment against it in Dennis Parker's libel suit. The core of the dispute was a letter sent by Cram Roofing's attorney accusing Parker of 'voluntarily terminating' employment and engaging in 'illegal activities' after Parker started a competing business. The appellate court denied Cram Roofing's motion for rehearing en banc and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that while 'voluntarily terminated' was not defamatory, the phrase 'illegal activities' could be interpreted as criminal conduct by an average person and was not substantially true. The jury's award of $50,000 for mental anguish damages to Parker was also upheld.

LibelDefamationStatute of LimitationsSubstantial TruthMental AnguishNon-Compete AgreementEmployment LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
18
Case No. 2015-06-0248
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2015

Orellana, Jose v. Vazquez Roofing and Five Points Roofing

Jose Orellana, an employee of Vazquez Roofing, suffered a head injury and fractured right arm after falling from a ladder on March 30, 2015, in the course of his employment. The Workers' Compensation Court at Nashville determined that Mr. Orellana was an employee, not an independent contractor. As Vazquez Roofing lacked valid workers' compensation insurance, Five Points Roofing, as the statutory employer, and its carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance, were ordered to pay for Mr. Orellana's medical care. Claims against Plaza Insurance were dismissed as their policy with Vazquez Roofing had been canceled. However, Mr. Orellana's request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration of his disability.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability DenialStatutory EmployerInsurance LiabilitySubcontractorFall InjuryArm Fracture
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. State

The State of Texas sued Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company under the Texas Clean Air Act for violations concerning stack-sampling facilities and excessive visible emissions (opacity). The trial court initially found against Fry Roofing on both counts, imposing penalties and injunctive relief. On appeal, the court reversed the stack-sampling judgment, ruling the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the Board's primary administrative jurisdiction had not been exhausted. Regarding the opacity charge, the appellate court found sufficient evidence of violation but reversed and remanded for a new trial due to the trial court's erroneous exclusion of defense evidence and the improper admission of the defendant's nationwide financial data for penalty assessment. The court also held that conducting observations without prior notice did not constitute a denial of due process.

Air PollutionEnvironmental LawCivil PenaltiesInjunctive ReliefTexas Clean Air ActStack SamplingOpacity RegulationsDue ProcessEvidence ExclusionAppellate Jurisdiction
References
8
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. W2019-00271-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2020

Cook's Roofing, Inc. v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

This appeal concerns retrospective insurance premiums for an assigned risk workers’ compensation insurance policy. The insured employer, Cook's Roofing, Inc., sued Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company after an audit revealed additional premiums were owed due to an uninsured subcontractor. Cook's Roofing alleged negligence, promissory estoppel, and consumer protection violations. Hartford counterclaimed for the unpaid premiums. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hartford. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part regarding the 2006-2007 policy period premium, and remanded for further proceedings, including reconsideration of a motion to amend and the issue of piercing the corporate veil.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsAssigned Risk PolicySubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimPromissory EstoppelTennessee Consumer Protection ActBreach of ContractPrejudgment Interest
References
59
Showing 1-10 of 1,179 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