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

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp.

The Secretary of Labor brought an action against SCA Restaurant Corporation and its owner, Luigi Quarta, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, inadequate record-keeping, and retaliation. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on all claims, determining their violations were willful. The defendants paid fixed weekly salaries despite employees working over 40 hours, falsified records, and threatened employees for testifying. The court awarded $137,867.12 in unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $2,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. A prospective injunction was also issued to prevent future FLSA violations.

FLSA ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecord Keeping ViolationsEmployee RetaliationWillful ViolationsUndocumented WorkersLiquidated DamagesCompensatory DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
87
Case No. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery L.P. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2012

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialize Surgery, L.P. v. Republic Services, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Hand & Wrist Center of Houston and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery (appellants) regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest. They sued Republic Services, Inc. (appellee) for breach of contract after Republic failed to fully pay for medical services provided to an employee, making partial payments just before trial. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest only on the damages found by the jury, excluding the pretrial partial payments. The appellate court found this to be an abuse of discretion, asserting that appellants were entitled to interest on all damages, including the belatedly paid amounts. Applying the 'declining principal' formula, the court modified the judgment to include interest on the partial payments, emphasizing the policy of compensating for lost use of money and deterring delayed payments.

Prejudgment InterestBreach of ContractPartial PaymentEquitable PrinciplesDeclining Principal FormulaAbuse of DiscretionContractual DamagesAppellate ReviewMedical ServicesTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horowitz v. New York City School Construction Authority

Petitioner Elizabeth Horowitz was injured in May 1995 at a construction site in Brooklyn. Initially, she served notices of claim on the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education, unaware of the New York City School Construction Authority's (SCA) involvement. She learned of SCA's role in March 1996 and subsequently sought leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner argued that SCA had actual knowledge due to its involvement in the construction and its failure to post required identifying signage, which prevented her from timely identifying the correct municipal entity. SCA opposed, citing lack of actual knowledge and prejudice. The court granted the petitioner's application, reasoning that SCA was estopped from asserting an untimely claim defense because its non-compliance with legal signage requirements created the initial difficulty in identifying the responsible party.

Late Notice of ClaimEquitable EstoppelMunicipal LiabilityPublic Authorities LawConstruction Site AccidentSignage ViolationsGovernmental ImmunityPersonal InjuryStatute of LimitationsActual Notice
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02366 [227 AD3d 406]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Matter of Carlson v. New York City Council

This case concerns a hybrid CPLR article 78/declaratory judgment proceeding initiated by Christina Carlson and others against the New York City Council and the New York City School Construction Authority (SCA). The Supreme Court had annulled SCA's negative declaration for a proposed school development, remanding for an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court concluded that despite misclassifying the project as 'unlisted' instead of 'Type I' under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the SCA nonetheless conducted an equivalent Type I review, fulfilling the 'hard look' requirement for potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the misclassification did not necessitate annulling the negative declaration.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)Type I ActionUnlisted ActionMisclassificationJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionSchool Construction Project
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wachter, Inc. v. Cabling Innovations, LLC

Plaintiff Wachter, Inc. sued former employees Brian Pitts and Josh Estes, along with Megan Pitts and Cabling Innovations, LLC, alleging various federal and state law violations, including under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), Electronic Communications Protection Act (ECPA), Stored Communications Act (SCA), breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil conspiracy. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part. It dismissed the federal claims (CFAA, ECPA, SCA) and several state law claims (breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, conversion), finding them either legally insufficient, not applicable to employees, or preempted by the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA). However, the court allowed the claims for breach of duty of loyalty (Count V) and civil conspiracy (Count IX) to proceed against the relevant defendants.

Computer FraudEmployee MisconductConfidential InformationTrade SecretsMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsBreach of Duty of LoyaltyCivil ConspiracyCFAA
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams

This case addresses allegations of email snooping within the nuclear pharmacy industry, where plaintiff Cardinal Health 414, Inc. sued former employees Daniel Adams and Allen B. Townsend along with Music City Nuclear Pharmacy. Adams allegedly accessed a former co-worker's email account after leaving Cardinal and shared confidential information, including customer data and pricing, with Townsend, who subsequently started a competing business. Cardinal sought damages for business losses, claiming violations of federal and Tennessee statutes concerning electronic communications and trade secrets. The court rendered decisions on several cross-motions for summary judgment, granting some claims and denying others, while also addressing affirmative defenses. Ultimately, the court found Adams liable for an SCA violation and granted summary judgment against defendants on wiretap and civil conspiracy claims, but allowed TPCCA and TUTSA claims to proceed to trial.

E-mail snoopingTrade secrets misappropriationComputer fraudElectronic communications privacyWiretap ActSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesLachesIllegalityAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. Perkan Concrete Corp.

The plaintiff was injured on November 14, 2007, when a Bobcat excavating machine ran over his left foot during sidewalk replacement work in Brooklyn. He initiated an action against Perkan Concrete Corp., the New York City School Construction Authority, the City of New York, and the New York City Department of Education. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but on appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court denied summary judgment for certain Labor Law § 241 (6) claims (specifically those based on 12 NYCRR §§ 23-9.5 (g) and 23-9.2 (a)) and a common-law negligence/Labor Law § 200 claim against Perkan, citing failures in the defendants' prima facie showings regarding equipment safety and dangerous conditions. However, it affirmed the dismissal of other Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and the common-law negligence/Labor Law § 200 claim against the SCA, finding they lacked sufficient control over the work.

Construction accidentBobcat injuryLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code violationCommon-law negligenceLabor Law § 200Summary judgmentNondelegable dutySafe place to workNegligent bailment
References
38
Showing 1-8 of 8 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