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 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
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
Dec 09, 1987

Kincade v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

This is a class action lawsuit filed against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial discrimination in various employment practices at its LaVergne, Tennessee plant. The plaintiffs, comprising black applicants, current, and former employees, and the Nashville NAACP, claimed discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, disciplinary actions, and terminations. The Court found insufficient evidence to establish a systemwide pattern or practice of intentional discrimination or disparate impact for the class claims, thus entering judgment for the defendant on these matters. However, for individual claims, the Court ruled in favor of Bobby Lee Kincade for a racially hostile work environment, Mary Pope Fite for discriminatory failure to promote, and Bobby W. Ivy for discriminatory failure to hire, while denying all other individual claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate treatmentDisparate impactClass actionHiring discriminationPromotion discrimination
References
42
Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Employers Casualty Company Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Genesys Cost Management Systems, Inc. Corporate Systems, Ltd. Employers National Risk Management Services, Inc. And Havis Wayne Dortch v. Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund El Paso I.S.D. Irving I.S.D. Hico I.S.D. And Aransas Pass I.S.D.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Intratex Gas Co. v. Beeson

This case is an appeal from an interlocutory order certifying a class action under Tex.R. Civ. P. 42. The Plaintiffs, Richard Beeson, Eclipse Oil & Gas, Inc., and O’Neill Properties, Ltd., brought a lawsuit alleging that Intratex Gas Company did not purchase natural gas in ratable proportions from over 900 producers. Intratex appealed the trial court's decision to certify the class, challenging the satisfaction of Rule 42 requirements including numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's determination using an abuse-of-discretion standard. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that all prerequisites for class action certification under Rule 42 were met.

Class actionInterlocutory appealTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 42Natural gas productionUnratable takingOil and gas lawNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityAdequacy of representation
References
28
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. 2025 NYSlipOp 07013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Pacheco v. 32-42 55th St. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Galo Pacheco, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from scaffolding at a construction site owned by 32-42 55th Street Realty, LLC. He commenced an action against the owner and B Green Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division found that B Green Construction Corp. was a statutory agent of the owner due to its authority to supervise and control the work, and that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that his fall was caused by defective scaffolding. The court reiterated that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty and absolute liability on owners, general contractors, and their agents for elevation-related risks, and that contributory negligence is not a defense.

Scaffolding AccidentConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Statutory AgentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityElevation-Related Risk
References
19
Case No. NO. 2-03-037-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2003

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, Richard Reynolds as Executive Director of the TWCC and Danny Morrison

The appellant, Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The Second District of Texas, Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, considered the motion. The court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and 43.2(f). The appellant was ordered to pay all costs associated with the appeal, as per Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(d).

Appellate ProcedureMotion to DismissWorkers' CompensationTexas LawCourt of AppealsPer Curiam DecisionCost AllocationJudicial DismissalCivil ProcedureInsurance Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texans Against Censorship v. State Bar of Texas

The case is a federal civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that regulate attorney advertising and solicitation. Plaintiffs, including Texans Against Censorship, Inc. and individual attorneys, argued the rules violate First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. The court, presided over by Justice, District Judge, analyzed the rules under commercial speech guidelines. It upheld most amended rules, such as those concerning trade names, false communications, comparison of services, telephone solicitation bans, and record-keeping, as constitutional. However, three rules were found unconstitutional: the "branch office rule" (7.04(j)) as applied to plaintiff Newton, and the bans on implying State Bar approval (7.05(b)(4)) and personally delivered mail (7.05(b)(5)) as facially unconstitutional. The court granted declaratory relief but declined injunctive relief.

Attorney AdvertisingCommercial SpeechFirst AmendmentConstitutional LawLegal EthicsProfessional ConductDeclaratory ReliefFree SpeechEqual ProtectionPrior Restraint
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,241 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