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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Building Restoration Co. v. Lovell Safety Management Co.

Plaintiff, a construction company, purchased a workers' compensation policy and became a member of a safety group managed by the defendant. Plaintiff obtained a certificate of workers' compensation insurance through defendant for a Massachusetts project, but the policy stated coverage only for New York operations. After a Massachusetts employee was injured, defendant refused coverage, leading plaintiff to sue for breach of contract, negligence, estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and General Business Law § 349. The Supreme Court partially denied defendant's summary judgment motion. The appellate court reversed, finding no contractual relationship or duty owed by defendant as a safety group manager, and dismissed all claims, concluding that the policy unambiguously limited coverage to New York workplaces, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate broad consumer impact for its General Business Law claim.

Insurance Policy LimitsExtraterritorial CoverageSummary Judgment ReviewContractual DutyTort LiabilityReliance DoctrineInsurance BrokerageStatutory InterpretationBusiness Practices LitigationAppellate Procedure
References
21
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05172 [220 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Matter of Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Jaime Espinoza, a safety manager, sustained injuries while pulling a gate in a parking area adjacent to a construction site after his shift. He filed for workers' compensation, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer neither controlled the parking area nor was it part of the jobsite. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Court found a sufficient nexus between the employment and the parking area, noting that Espinoza was instructed to park there and construction materials were stored by the general contractor in the same vicinity, thereby extending the employer's premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryParking Area InjuryPremises Extension DoctrineRemittalAppellate Division Third DepartmentConstruction SiteSafety ManagerArising Out of Employment
References
13
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

Ortega v. Catamount Construction Corp.

A laborer sued a site owner, construction manager, and an asbestos removal prime contractor for personal injuries sustained at a renovation site. The Supreme Court found the defendants liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), apportioning fault among them and a defaulting asbestos removal subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The site owner was awarded common-law indemnity against the construction manager and asbestos contractors, and contractual indemnity against the prime contractor. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the apportionment of fault due to being against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial for this issue, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The court also affirmed the common-law indemnity for the owner against the construction manager and addressed the construction manager's unpreserved liability argument.

Personal InjuryRenovation SiteLabor Law 240(1)Apportionment of FaultIndemnityConstruction SafetyScaffoldRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupreme CourtAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. 535483
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Jaime Espinoza

Claimant, a safety manager, was injured in a parking area adjacent to his construction site after his shift while pulling a gate, sustaining a bicep and rotator cuff injury. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the parking area was not part of the job site or controlled by the employer. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that claimant's uncontradicted testimony established he was instructed to park in that area and that construction materials were stored there, creating a sufficient nexus between the construction site and the parking area to extend the employment premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentParking Area InjuryPremises DoctrineArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentConstruction SiteEmployer ControlNexusRemittal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1999

Gruter v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.

The Supreme Court judgment in New York County, favoring the plaintiff laborer against the defendant-appellant construction manager, was unanimously affirmed. The court found that a fair interpretation of the evidence supported the finding that the appellant actively supervised safety at the work site and had the authority to correct unsafe conditions, specifically a 1 1/2 to 3-inch high concrete lip in the floor. Evidence included the appellant's project superintendent's testimony regarding responsibility for procuring and supervising work, conducting safety meetings, and having an on-site safety manager. Additionally, a concrete worker testified that appellant inspected floors and provided protective measures.

Construction SafetyWorksite SupervisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryDuty to SuperviseUnsafe ConditionConstruction Manager LiabilityEvidence Interpretation
References
4
Case No. 01-14-00379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Mose A. Guillory and Mary Guillory v. Seaton LLC D/B/A Staff Management

Mose A. Guillory and Mary Guillory appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit against Seaton, LLC D/B/A Staff Management under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. Mose Guillory, an employee of iWorks assigned to Waste Management, was injured while operating machinery and alleged he received no proper safety training. The Guillorys sued Seaton, asserting various negligence claims including negligent undertaking. The trial court granted Seaton's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the negligent-undertaking claim lacked a legal basis and upholding the constitutionality of Rule 91a against challenges regarding statutory authority, open courts, free speech, due process, and equal protection.

Rule 91aNegligent UndertakingMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawOpen CourtsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFree SpeechAppellate Procedure
References
44
Case No. 2017-06-1855
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Iboy, Olga Esperanza v. Kenten Management, LLC

Olga Esperanza Iboy, a laundry attendant for Kenten Management, LLC, suffered a back injury after falling from a one-step stool. Kenten Management denied her workers' compensation claim, asserting she willfully failed to use a two-step safety device. At an expedited hearing in Nashville, Judge Kenneth M. Switzer ruled that Kenten Management failed to satisfy its burden of proof regarding this affirmative defense. The court found Ms. Iboy's testimony credible, indicating she had no actual notice of a safety rule, perceived no dangers with the one-step stool, and had no other stool available. Consequently, the employer's defense was rejected, and the case is set for a scheduling hearing.

Work InjurySafety DeviceWillful Misconduct DefenseCompensabilityCredibility AssessmentLanguage BarrierLaundry AccidentBack InjuryWorkers' CompensationTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 5,780 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