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
May 18, 1994

Claim of Boshart v. St. Francis Hospital

The claimant, a hospital employee, stopped working due to an aggravated preexisting back condition and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Her claim was initially denied, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found prima facie medical evidence for an occupational back condition. Upon appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the employer's contention that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, ruling the employer had waived this defense. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer failed to raise the Statute of Limitations defense at the first hearing where all parties were present, thereby waiving the right to assert it.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsWaiverOccupational DiseaseBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewProcedural DefenseInsurance ClaimBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. State

This opinion, authored by Chief Justice Harbison, concurs that disability for a scheduled injury is based on loss of use rather than earning capacity. However, it dissents on the grounds that the workers' compensation claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employee sustained a wrist fracture, received medical treatment, and wore a cast for weeks, yet waited twenty years to file a claim for permanent disability. The Chief Justice argues that the employee knew or should have known of a work-related injury and disability, even without precise information, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations should apply from the date of injury or last medical payment. The opinion references Taylor v. Clayton Mobile Homes, Inc. and Jones v. Home Indemnity Co. to support the argument against extending the statute of limitations for such a long period, especially when the injury was apparent from the beginning.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsScheduled InjuryPermanent DisabilityWrist FractureLatent InjuryKnowledge of InjuryMedical ExpensesTimeliness of ClaimJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2013

Scholastic Inc. v. Pace Plumbing Corp.

Plaintiff, Scholastic Inc., suffered over $1.5 million in water damage in 2006 due to a broken Victaulic coupling in its Manhattan building, installed by defendant Pace Plumbing Corp. Scholastic's insurer, subrogated to its rights, sued Pace in 2008 for negligence and breach of contract. Pace's answer included a single paragraph listing 16 boilerplate affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, without separate numbering. The motion court deemed the statute of limitations defense inadequately pleaded but granted summary judgment to Pace on the merits. The appellate court reversed, holding that Pace's statute of limitations defense was indeed inadequately pleaded and prejudiced Scholastic by hindering targeted discovery. The case was remanded to allow Pace to amend its pleading and Scholastic to conduct discovery on the statute of limitations issue, specifically the completion date of Pace's work. The court also raised questions regarding the universal applicability of prior precedent on pleading particularity compared to Official Form 17.

Pleading RequirementsAffirmative DefenseStatute of LimitationsCPLRPrejudiceDiscoverySummary JudgmentRemandAppellate ReviewBoilerplate Defenses
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Perico

This case addresses the defendants' Perico and Andriano's motion to dismiss an information. The defendants argued that the prosecution for Workers' Compensation Law §§ 50 and 52 violations was untimely, having been filed two years and two days after the alleged misdemeanor, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors. They also contended the information was insufficient due to the absence of certified Workers' Compensation Board awards. The People opposed, arguing the statute of limitations defense was waived for not being raised within pretrial motion deadlines. The court held that the Statute of Limitations defense is a jurisdictional right, waivable only at trial or upon a guilty plea, not automatically by CPL 255.20's time limits. Furthermore, the court found the information fatally defective due to the lack of prima facie evidence. Consequently, the information against both defendants was dismissed.

Criminal ProcedureStatute of LimitationsDismissalAccusatory InstrumentInformation InsufficiencyWaiverJurisdictional RightMisdemeanorPretrial MotionsPlea of Guilty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1997

Andrews v. Johnson

Brenda Gail Andrews filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the Respondent moved to dismiss based on a one-year statute of limitations. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, determining that the new Habeas Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar. The recommendation also clarified that petitioners filing after the AEDPA's effective date of April 24, 1996, have a reasonable period, specifically one year, to commence their litigation. The District Court adopted this recommendation, denying the Respondent's motion to dismiss and instructing them to file an Answer within thirty days.

Habeas CorpusStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseJurisdictional BarAEDPAFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRetroactive ApplicationJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityFifth Circuit
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dukes v. Montgomery County Nursing Home

The plaintiff initiated a worker's compensation claim for a back injury sustained on April 12, 1976. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitations and that a subsequent refiling after a voluntary nonsuit was not saved by the relevant statute because the original action was also untimely. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations, including assurances of payment and settlement offers, should estop them from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The Supreme Court concurred, finding that the defendants' conduct did indeed estop them from relying on the statute of limitations for the initial lawsuit. This estoppel legally rendered the first action as 'commenced within the time limited by a rule or statute of limitation,' thus making the savings statute applicable to the second action. Consequently, the Court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing.

worker's compensationstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelfraudulent misrepresentationsavings statutevoluntary nonsuitback injuryemployer liabilityinsurance carrierTennessee law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 8,223 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