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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01046 [169 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Barrios v. 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Sergio Barrios, sustained personal injuries when a differential block and chain fell on his head while preparing a hoisting apparatus at the defendants' premises. He sued 19-19 24th Avenue Company, LLC, et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the repair work fell under its purview. It also granted the defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the plaintiff's work did not constitute construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawGravity HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRepair WorkHoisting ApparatusWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISC. NO. 264
En Banc
Oct 27, 2020

Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vs. State of California

The Appeals Board rescinds its suspension of WCAB Rules 10755, 10756, and 10888, which had previously suspended the dismissal of cases for failure to appear due to the COVID-19 emergency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCOVID-19State of EmergencyEn BancWCAB RulesSuspensionRescindsDismissalFailure to AppearApplication
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 1984

Claim of Bennett v. G. O. Dairies, Inc.

A claimant was injured by gunshots after parking her car across the street from her workplace, where she regularly drove the store manager. She testified that she was paid from 7:00 a.m., and her transportation services for the manager were known and beneficial to the employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment, citing the presumption under Workers’ Compensation Law Section 21(1). The employer and its insurance carrier appealed, arguing she had not commenced employment duties or reached the premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding ample basis to conclude her activities were job-related and that the presumption was not rebutted.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionPresumption of CausationArising Out Of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentInjury en routeShooting IncidentEmployer BenefitPaid Travel Time
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karasyk v. Marc Commodities Corp.

Philip Karasyk, a commodity futures trader, sued Marc Commodities Corp., a futures commission merchant, alleging fraudulent transfer of crude oil futures contracts into his account, violating the Commodity Exchange Act. Karasyk asserted fraud and negligence claims after suffering significant financial losses. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, dismiss for lack of particularity in fraud allegations (Rule 9(b)), and join Chicago Corp. (Rule 19(a)). The court denied arbitration, ruling NFA rules didn't mandate it for Karasyk as an Associate Member. However, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to meet Rule 9(b)'s pleading standards regarding fraud, granting leave for Karasyk to replead.

FraudCommodity Exchange ActFederal Arbitration ActRule 9(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedurePleading StandardsScienterIntent to DefraudFutures ContractsNational Futures AssociationMandatory Arbitration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Corpus Christi

This cross-appeal addresses the interpretation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA) concerning a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Association. The dispute centers on whether the City's unilateral implementation of revised grooming standards and modifications to the Vehicle Accident Review Board (VARB) procedural rules constituted mandatory subjects for bargaining as "conditions of employment." Applying a balancing test, the court determined that both the grooming standards and the VARB rules had a greater impact on the City's management prerogatives, particularly public image and safety, than on the fire fighters' working conditions. Consequently, these issues were not deemed "conditions of employment" requiring collective bargaining. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on grooming standards and reversed its ruling regarding the VARB rules.

Collective BargainingFPERAGrooming StandardsVehicle Accident Review BoardConditions of EmploymentManagement PrerogativesPublic SafetyFire FightersUnilateral ImplementationLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavazos v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

The case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit to overturn a final ruling by the Industrial Accident Board. The dismissal was due to the appellant's failure to file the suit within the mandatory 20-day limitation period prescribed by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307 § 5. The appellant contended that worker's compensation law should be liberally construed, citing precedents like Ward and Standard Fire Insurance Company. However, the court affirmed that the 20-day filing period is jurisdictional and mandatory. It clarified that Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for an enlargement of time for mailed documents, was inapplicable because the appellant's petition was filed late, not merely mailed late. The court concluded that applying Rule 5 would improperly extend the statute of limitations, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Statute of LimitationsJurisdictionTimely FilingAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident Board RulingRule 5 TRCPMandatory Statutory PeriodLiberal Construction DoctrineProcedural DismissalWorker's Benefits Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,136 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