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
Apr 03, 1986

Soto v. City of New York

Wilfredo Soto, an epileptic, participated in the Public Works Program in conjunction with the New York City Department of Social Services, working for the Department of Transportation. In May 1979, he suffered a seizure on a work bus, fell out, and sustained a fractured spine, rendering him paraplegic. Soto appealed a judgment, claiming errors in jury instructions regarding comparative fault, where he was found 70% at fault and the City of New York 30%. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury instructions on comparative fault were proper and Soto's remaining contentions were without merit. The City of New York's cross-appeal for dismissal of Soto's cause of action was also denied.

Personal InjuryComparative FaultJury InstructionsParaplegiaEpilepsyPublic Works ProgramNegligenceAppellate ReviewKings CountyNew York City
References
1
Case No. NO . 13-0136
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2015

Nabors Well Services, Ltd. F/K/A Pool Company Texas, Ltd. and Lauro Bernal Garcia v. Asuncion Romero, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Aydee Romero, and as Next Friend of Edgar Romero and Saul Romero Esperanza Soto, Individually and as Next Friend of Esperanza Soto, Guadalupe Soto, Maria Elena Soto And Marti

The Texas Supreme Court overruled its 1974 precedent, Carnation Co. v. Wong, which barred evidence of seat-belt nonuse in civil car-accident cases. In this decision, delivered by Justice Brown, the Court held that relevant evidence of a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct, such as failure to use a seat belt, is admissible for apportioning responsibility under the state's proportionate-responsibility statute. The Court reasoned that legislative changes to Texas's fault apportionment system and modern seat-belt laws have rendered the old rule anachronistic. The case involved a collision where seat-belt use was disputed, and the trial court had excluded seat-belt evidence based on the Carnation precedent. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this new interpretation.

Seat Belt DefenseComparative NegligenceProportionate ResponsibilityTort ReformInjury CausationAutomobile AccidentTexas Supreme CourtLegal PrecedentStatutory InterpretationCivil Procedure
References
30
Case No. 07-06-0247-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2007

Albino Rosendo Soto v. State

Appellant Albino Rosendo Soto appealed his conviction for assault-family violence. The victim, Belinda Clifton, testified that Soto, her live-in girlfriend, assaulted her by throwing a plate, hitting her, and choking her during an argument. She described physical injuries and temporary blindness caused by the assault. Soto challenged the conviction based on legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence, attempting to discredit the victim's testimony due to inconsistencies and drug use. The appellate court found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction, noting that the jury was responsible for resolving credibility disputes, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Assault-family violenceSufficiency of evidenceLegal sufficiencyFactual sufficiencyCredibility of witnessAppellate reviewCriminal appealDomestic violenceWitness testimonyTrial court judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Soto

Eddie Soto, a former Sam's Wholesale Club employee, was injured in May 1987, resulting in a hernia and other medical issues, for which he received workers' compensation. A jury found him totally and permanently incapacitated. The compensation carrier, National Union Fire Insurance Company, appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and improper jury argument. The appellate court examined Soto's post-injury employment history, noting he held jobs at the V.A. and White Sands Missile Range with less strenuous duties, earning a higher wage at the latter. The court concluded the overwhelming evidence was against the jury's finding of total and permanent incapacity, as Soto demonstrated an ability to obtain and retain employment. Therefore, the judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationTotal IncapacityPermanent IncapacitySufficiency of EvidenceJury ArgumentAppellate ReviewEmployment HistoryMedical DisabilityRemandTexas Law
References
12
Case No. E2020-00375-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2021

Toryiana Louisa Soto v. Presidential Properties, LLC

This case involves claims brought under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and the Tennessee Real Estate Broker License Act, along with other related claims concerning real estate transactions. The plaintiffs, Toryina and Luis Soto, and John and Tina Colbaugh, sued Presidential Properties, LLC and Kenneth Gross for fraud, breach of contract, and violations of the aforementioned acts. Kenneth Gross, acting as an unlicensed real estate broker, improperly advertised properties he did not own and misled the Sotos. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, and restored the Bays View property title to the Sotos. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's conclusions regarding fraud and the violation of the Real Estate Broker License Act but vacated the award of attorney's fees due to insufficient explanation, remanding for further findings.

Real Estate FraudConsumer Protection ActBroker License ActBreach of ContractTreble DamagesAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigantExpert Witness ExclusionStatutory Interpretation
References
30
Case No. 2021-08-0937
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2024

Soto, Victor v. Patterson, Jr., d/b/a Patterson Construction

This is the second interlocutory appeal in a case where claimant Victor Soto asserts he sustained significant head injuries while working for Denny Patterson, Jr., d/b/a Patterson Construction. The employer denied the claim, contending Soto was an independent contractor. The trial court initially denied benefits but later denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Soto's employment status. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that while the employer met its initial burden of production for summary judgment, the record revealed multiple genuine issues of material fact regarding the claimant's employment status that preclude summary judgment. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentBurden of ProofGenuine Issues of Material FactEmployment StatusAppeals BoardRemandInterlocutory AppealRule 56
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. J. Crew Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Soto, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while dusting a display shelf at a J. Crew store. He sued J. Crew and The Mercer I L.L.C. under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying Soto's task as routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing criteria to differentiate routine cleaning from covered activities and concluding that dusting a display shelf was not within the statute's protective scope. The decision clarifies the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation-related risks in commercial cleaning.

Labor LawElevation RiskRoutine MaintenanceCommercial CleaningPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLadder FallWorkplace Safety
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. El Paso Natural Gas Co.

Emma Soto sued her employer, El Paso Natural Gas Co. (EPNG), for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for EPNG. Soto appealed, arguing the lower court misapplied limitations periods and misinterpreted sexual harassment and employer liability for employee torts. The appellate court reviewed the "totality of circumstances" and found ample evidence for a hostile work environment, including overtly sexual acts and gender-based harassment. It also found fact questions regarding EPNG's notice and remedial actions, and whether Trujillo's assault was within the scope of employment. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentSex discriminationEmployer liabilityIntentional infliction of emotional distressAssaultSummary judgment appealTexas Human Rights ActQuid pro quo harassmentScope of employment
References
22
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

David Santiago, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a roof while performing construction work. He and his wife initiated a lawsuit against the general contractor, Hanley Group, Inc., asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Hanley Group, Inc. Hanley Group, Inc. appealed, contending that it had complied with its statutory duty or that Santiago's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of its contentions and therefore affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Santiago v. West Texas Community Supervision & Corrections Department

Adela De Santiago, a case manager for the West Texas Community Supervision & Corrections Department (WTCSCD), filed an employment discrimination suit against WTCSCD, county court at law judges, and district court judges. She alleged gender-based discrimination and retaliation after reporting sexual harassment, under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for summary judgment, dismissing her suit. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that WTCSCD was a state instrumentality but not De Santiago's employer for TCHRA purposes, as the district judges had ultimate control over personnel decisions. Furthermore, the court determined that suing the judges in their official capacities was effectively suing the judicial districts or El Paso County, neither of which qualified as her employer under TCHRA.

Employment LawDiscrimination (Gender)RetaliationSexual HarassmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRAStatutory EmployerGovernmental ImmunityJudicial ImmunityOfficial Capacity Suit
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 124 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