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

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

Mike Mandlbauer, injured in a forklift accident in 1992, had his claim disputed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after later medical findings contradicted an earlier MRI. A district court jury found Mandlbauer's current symptoms and disability were not a result of the 1992 injury. On appeal, Mandlbauer complained about the trial court's refusal to include a "sole cause" inferential rebuttal instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Mandlbauer, as the plaintiff, lacked standing to complain about the omission of a defense-oriented "sole cause" instruction. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Mandlbauer's other issues.

Jury InstructionsSole CauseInferential RebuttalStandingAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationProducing CauseTexas LawTrial Court ErrorHarmful Error
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Schiavone Construction Co.

Plaintiff Robert Boyd, a drill operating engineer, was severely injured on a subway construction site when a drill rig he was operating tipped over, pinning him to the tracks. The incident occurred after safety chains securing the rig were removed, a procedure whose necessity and execution were disputed. Boyd filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the contractors, Schiavone Construction Co. and Granite Halmar Construction Company. The Supreme Court initially denied Boyd's motion for summary judgment on liability, citing a potential 'sole proximate cause' defense. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, emphasizing that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and found insufficient evidence to establish Boyd as the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby granting his motion for summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate DivisionDrill Rig AccidentConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentWorker InjuryFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.

The plaintiff, Deonarine Beharry, an iron worker, sustained injuries after falling through metal decking while ascending unfinished stairs at a construction site. He sued the property owners, Public Storage, Inc. and PSAC Development Partners, LP, and the general contractor, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The defendants appealed, arguing the metal decking was not a safety device and the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the metal decking served as a functional equivalent of a ladder under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffold LawLiabilityMetal DeckingSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soles v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Dana Soles, an employee of Christa Construction, Inc., sustained a back injury on July 20, 1990, while manually carrying a 600-pound door frame up a building staircase at Kodak Park. He sued site owner Eastman Kodak Company under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, alleging permanent disability due to the lack of safety devices. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Soles' claims. The court found that Soles' injury did not involve a fall or being struck by a falling object, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Furthermore, the claims under Labor Law § 241(6) were dismissed because the cited Industrial Code sections were either too general or irrelevant to the accident's cause, and Labor Law § 200(1) claims failed due to a lack of evidence regarding Eastman Kodak Company's notice or supervisory control over the work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity-related hazardMaterial hoistSupervisory authorityConstruction accidentWorkplace injuryThird-party action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. 07-99-0105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2000

James R. Walzier v. Newton, A.L., Dba Newton Trucking Company

James R. Walzier appealed a judgment denying him recovery against his employer, A.L. Newton d/b/a A.L. Newton Trucking Company, following a vehicle accident. Walzier alleged defective brakes, while Newton presented evidence suggesting Walzier's sole proximate cause. Walzier objected, arguing the evidence violated Texas Labor Code § 406.033 and that sole proximate cause was an unpleaded affirmative defense under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that § 406.033 does not prohibit the defense of sole proximate cause and that sole proximate cause is an inferential rebuttal issue, not an affirmative defense, thus not subject to Rule 94's pleading requirement.

Workers' CompensationSole Proximate CauseAffirmative DefenseEvidentiary ObjectionAdmissibility of EvidenceEmployee NegligenceEmployer LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Lee

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a conflict among courts of appeals regarding the admissibility of employer negligence as a sole cause defense in personal injury lawsuits where the employer is immune under workers' compensation. The Court clarifies its prior decision in Varela v. American Petrofina Co., ruling that it does not bar a defendant from introducing evidence that the plaintiff's employer's negligence was the sole cause of injury. The case involves Arthur B. Lee, who sued Dresser Industries, Inc., a silica supplier, after developing silicosis from working at Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. The trial court had erroneously excluded evidence of Tyler Pipe's negligence as a sole cause. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case, also providing guidance on jury instructions for sole cause and contributory negligence in future proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSole CauseContributory NegligenceProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnSilicosisEmployer NegligenceComparative ResponsibilityJury InstructionsEvidence Admissibility
References
18
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01847 [236 AD3d 1267]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Ferra v. Paramount Global

Claimant Jorge Ferra, a sound engineer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling for his employer. After an initial 'bumper to bumper' incident, he pulled over to the shoulder, and his vehicle was subsequently struck from behind by a third vehicle, causing serious injuries. A toxicology screening revealed a blood alcohol level of .18. The employer and carrier argued that intoxication was either the sole cause of the accident or constituted a significant deviation from employment, thus precluding compensability. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and that intoxication was not the sole cause of the injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, reiterating that the carrier bears a 'heavy burden' to prove intoxication was the *sole* cause of the injury, and that intoxicated driving itself does not, per se, constitute a deviation from employment that negates workers' compensation coverage.

Intoxication DefenseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentCourse of EmploymentSole Cause DoctrineDeviation from EmploymentCausally Related InjuryBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewThird Department Precedent
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Peoples

Charles W. Peoples, an employee of Jordan Ford, Inc., suffered a back injury in January 1976. Despite prior back injuries and surgeries in 1972 and 1974, he sought worker's compensation for total and permanent incapacity from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The insurance company challenged the jury's findings, arguing Peoples returned to work and his subsequent injuries were the sole cause of his disability. The court discussed the evolution of Texas's apportionment statutes in worker's compensation cases, specifically focusing on the 1971 amendment that abolished the percentage contribution defense for prior injuries. The court held that evidence of subsequent injuries is admissible if offered to show they were the sole cause of present disability. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial due to the exclusion of evidence regarding a subsequent injury in May 1977 and a related back operation in January 1978, which could potentially be the sole cause of his present disability.

Worker's CompensationTotal and Permanent IncapacityPre-existing ConditionSubsequent InjuryApportionment StatuteSole Cause DefenseSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsMedical TestimonyTexas Law
References
14
Case No. 2016-03-0991
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2017

Soles, wesley v. Kirkland's Pest Control

Mr. Soles, a pest control technician, claimed a left knee injury on August 30, 2016, while descending stairs and carrying insecticide for Kirkland's Pest Control. He reported a 'pop' and 'gush of pain' but denied stumbling or any defects in the stairs. He had a pre-existing gout condition in the same knee. Medical evaluations, including an MRI recommended by Dr. Rick Parsons, revealed a patellar tendon tear. Kirkland's denied the claim, citing an idiopathic incident and pre-existing condition. The court found that Mr. Soles did not establish that a condition or hazard incident to his employment caused or exacerbated his injuries, denying his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingIdiopathic InjuryPre-existing ConditionKnee InjuryPest Control TechnicianGoutPatellar Tendon TearBurden of ProofArising Out of Employment
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 7,617 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