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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. M2012-01196-WC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2013

Cha Yang v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Cha Yang, an employee of Nissan North America, Inc., suffered bilateral shoulder injuries in 2008, requiring surgeries. He later accepted a voluntary employment buyout and subsequently filed for workers’ compensation benefits. The trial court initially awarded 90% permanent partial disability benefits, ruling against a statutory cap. A Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reduced this award to 37.5%, applying the cap. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the employee's decision to accept the buyout was reasonable and directly related to his work injuries, thus rendering the statutory cap inapplicable. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Panel's decision in part and reinstated the trial court's original award of 90% permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Transition ProgramBuyoutMeaningful Return to WorkStatutory CapImpairment RatingBilateral Shoulder InjuriesMental InjuryReasonableness Standard
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a workers' compensation case involving Betty Nelson, who sustained a broken hip while working for Wal-Mart, resulting in an 8% medical impairment to the body as a whole. The primary issues were whether there was a "meaningful return to work" under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241 and the applicability of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242 to lift statutory disability caps. The Court affirmed the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel’s finding that there was no "meaningful return to work" because Wal-Mart's job offers were not reasonable given Nelson's physical limitations and lack of accommodation. Consequently, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-241(b) applied, allowing for a higher maximum disability award. The Court also affirmed that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-242 applied due to Nelson's age, lack of education, and job skills, permitting the award to exceed the statutory cap. The Court upheld the trial court's award of 60% permanent partial disability, modifying the Panel's judgment regarding the specific statutory sections.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMeaningful Return to WorkStatutory CapsMedical Impairment RatingVocational DisabilityAge FactorEducational BackgroundJob Skills TransferabilityEmployer Accommodation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cap Makers' Union, Local 2H Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union ex rel. Alvarez v. Feinstein

The case involves an action brought by Cap Makers Union, Local 2H, against former officers Michael Feinstein and Luz Rivera, seeking to prevent them from using a similar name for a rival union. Initially filed in New York State court based on state business law and common law, the defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting a federal question under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The federal district court, presided over by Judge Sweet, sua sponte remanded the action back to state court. The court found that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff's complaint did not establish a federal cause of action, and federal preemption, raised as a defense, is insufficient for removal. The court also denied Local 2H's request for costs and Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants for improper removal.

Federal jurisdictionRemoval actionRemandState law claimsFederal questionNational Labor Relations ActPreemption defenseTrade name disputeUnion disputeCosts and sanctions
References
5
Case No. 2-09-062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2010

Christopher O'Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. v. Rebecca Wright

Rebecca W. Wright sued Christopher O’Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and constructive discharge. A jury awarded Wright $425,000 in mental anguish damages. O’Dell appealed, raising issues concerning disallowed witness testimony, Wright’s childhood abduction testimony, sufficiency of evidence for mental anguish damages, and the application of a statutory damages cap. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings and holding that the statutory cap was an affirmative defense O'Dell failed to plead and prove. The court found sufficient evidence to support the mental anguish awards.

Sexual HarassmentAssault and BatteryConstructive DischargeMental Anguish DamagesStatutory Damages CapAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsRelevance ObjectionSufficiency of EvidenceAffirmative Defense
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'DELL v. Wright

Rebecca Wright sued Christopher O’Dell and Arlington Steakhouse, Inc. for sexual harassment, assault and battery, and constructive discharge, winning $425,000 in mental anguish damages at trial. O’Dell appealed, raising four issues: the exclusion of a defense witness, the allowance of Wright's testimony about a childhood sexual assault, the trial court's failure to apply a statutory cap to damages, and the sufficiency of evidence for the mental anguish award. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the witness exclusion or the admission of Wright's testimony. It also determined that O'Dell waived the statutory cap defense by not pleading it and found sufficient evidence to support the jury's mental anguish awards.

Sexual HarassmentAssault and BatteryConstructive DischargeMental Anguish DamagesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingStatutory Damages CapAffirmative DefenseDiscovery AbuseJury Verdict
References
19
Case No. 03-02-00803-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

All Saints Health System All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Fort Worth All Saints Episcopal Hospital/Cityview Baptist Health System Baptist Medical Center North Central Baptist Hospital Northeast Baptist St. Luke's Baptist v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission State Office of Risk Management Continental Casualty Company Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund Mid-Century Insurance Company Truck Insurance Exchange Farmers Insurance Exchange

This case addresses a dispute between hospitals and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and various insurers regarding reimbursement for medical services provided under a 1992 hospital fee guideline that was later invalidated. The hospitals sought reevaluation of claims under an expired 1991 emergency guideline or direct application of statutory standards. The insurers, conversely, argued that managed care contracts should cap the reimbursement amounts. The court affirmed the trial court's declaratory judgment, ruling that reimbursements must be determined on a fee-for-service basis, guided by the 'fair and reasonable' statutory requirements of Texas Labor Code section 413.011(d) and Rule 134.1. While managed care contracts are considered relevant evidence, they do not serve as a definitive cap on reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation LawHospital ReimbursementFee GuidelinesAdministrative LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Labor CodeMedical Cost ControlManaged Care ContractsRule InvalidationFee-for-Service Model
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation v. Auld

This case, heard by the Supreme Court of Texas, addresses whether statutory caps apply to punitive damages and prejudgment interest in health-care-liability claims. Lexa Auld, administratrix for Martha Hary, sued Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation for medical negligence at its nursing home. The Court affirmed that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 41.007 caps punitive damages, not Article 4590i, and clarified that Article 4590i’s cap does include prejudgment interest on damages subject to the cap. The decision also upheld the constitutionality of applying the cap to survival claims and Horizon's "health care provider" status, partially affirming and partially reversing the lower court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePunitive DamagesActual DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory InterpretationDamages CapSurvival ActionHealth Care Liability ClaimConstitutional Law
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 3,559 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