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

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Safety Cas. Co. v. Malvoux

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2012

Barreto v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff, an asbestos removal worker for P.A.L. Environmental Safety Corp. (PAL), fell into an uncovered manhole in January 2005 during a city environmental project. He brought claims against IMS Safety Corp., Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), and the City of New York for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff was instructed by his supervisor to replace the manhole cover before dismantling the containment enclosure, but he failed to do so and fell in. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident for failing to use the available safety device (the manhole cover) and disregarding supervisor instructions. IMS was found not liable due to lack of supervisory authority, and other defendants were not liable under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence due to no supervision or notice of defect.

Personal InjuryLabor LawManhole AccidentNegligenceSummary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseSafety DeviceSite SafetyEmployer LiabilityContractor Liability
References
6
Case No. 2019-04-0113
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2019

Watts, Billy Keith v. Graphic Packaging, Intl.

Mr. Watts, a press operator for Graphic Packaging, Intl. (GPI), sustained extensive hand injuries on February 20, 2019, while attempting to remove excess paper from an active press. He underwent multiple surgeries and lost fingers. A post-injury drug test was positive for marijuana, though intoxication was not an affirmative defense. GPI denied benefits, asserting a willful misconduct defense under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(1), arguing Mr. Watts violated a known safety rule against reaching into moving equipment. The Court found Mr. Watts' testimony regarding how the injury occurred lacked credibility and determined he had actual notice and understanding of the safety rule and its dangers. Despite allegations of a supervisor's lax enforcement, the Court found GPI demonstrated bona fide enforcement of its safety policies, especially after demoting the supervisor upon learning of his actions. Mr. Watts' justification for violating the rule, to maintain productivity, was deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Watts' request for workers’ compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationWillful MisconductSafety ViolationPress Machine InjuryEmployee NegligenceEmployer DefenseInjury at WorkDrug Test PositiveSupervisor LiabilityIndustrial Accident
References
4
Case No. M2016-00083-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Vernon Lockhart v. Commissioner of The Tennessee Department of Safety

This appeal arises from a civil forfeiture. Vernon Lockhart was charged and later convicted on a number of criminal counts related to the distribution of large amounts of marijuana. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security declared as forfeited certain of Lockhart's properties alleged to be derived from illegal drug transactions. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the Department by a preponderance of the evidence, a decision which was affirmed on appeal by the Chancery Court for Davidson County. Lockhart appeals to this Court, arguing that the evidence used against him should have been suppressed and that the ALJ and Trial Court erred by failing to conduct an independent analysis of his suppression issue. The Court of Appeals holds that the ALJ's order of forfeiture was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Lockhart from re-litigating the suppression issue. The judgment of the Trial Court upholding the ALJ's forfeiture order is affirmed.

Civil ForfeitureDrug TraffickingCollateral EstoppelSuppression of EvidenceExclusionary RulePreponderance of EvidenceAsset ForfeitureCriminal ConvictionAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. 11-20-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Justin Schrader v. Texas Department of Public Safety

Justin Schrader sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) for injuries sustained during his arrest, alleging negligent application of handcuffs and a 'leg sweep' by Trooper Jerry Hale. DPS moved to dismiss the suit, citing sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The trial court granted the dismissal. On appeal, Schrader argued that the TTCA's waiver of immunity applied and that the intentional tort exclusion did not, as Trooper Hale did not intend to injure him. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the gravamen of Schrader's complaint was excessive force—a battery, an intentional tort—which falls under the TTCA's intentional tort exclusion, thus preserving DPS's sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional Tort ExclusionBatteryExcessive ForcePolice MisconductPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunityInterlocutory Appeal
References
29
Case No. NO. 03-08-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2010

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Thomas Williams

Appellee Thomas Williams sued the Texas Department of Public Safety for discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act after being involuntarily transferred from the Governor's Protective Detail to the narcotics division. A jury found the Department retaliated against Williams, awarding him back pay, front pay, and damages for mental anguish. The Department appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for an adverse employment action and the monetary awards, and improper admission of an internal affairs report and an EEOC determination letter. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Williams's transfer, which resulted in a substantial loss of overtime and other benefits, constituted a materially adverse employment action. The court also found the jury's back and front pay awards were supported by sufficient evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings.

Employment RetaliationRace DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAdverse Employment ActionBack PayFront PayOvertime CompensationEvidentiary RulingsInternal Affairs ReportEEOC Determination Letter
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 2,372 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