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

Schaffer v. Benefit Plan of Exxon Corp.

Plaintiffs Phillip W. Schaffer and David W. Stiefel, former employees of Exxon, filed a lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) after being denied disability benefits by the Benefit Plan of Exxon Corporation. Both plaintiffs sustained on-the-job elbow injuries. Defendant Exxon moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits was justified by substantial evidence, indicating that the plaintiffs were either not incapacitated or did not adhere to prescribed treatment plans. The Court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review and determined that the Plan Administrator's decisions were indeed supported by adequate evidence. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, denied the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment, and dismissed their claims with prejudice.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentAbuse of Discretion StandardEmployee Benefit PlanPlan AdministratorMedical EvaluationWork-Hardening ProgramDenial of BenefitsJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1994

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kenneth Yesmont & Associates, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund (plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit to recover $18,135.35 in workers' compensation premiums from Kenneth Yesmont & Associates (defendant), which included liabilities for subcontractors lacking coverage. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and referred the payroll classification issue to the Superintendent of Insurance for review. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the dispute primarily concerned coverage, a matter within the court's jurisdiction, rather than merely classification. Finding no factual dispute regarding the subcontractors' coverage or the plaintiff's audit calculations, the appellate court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16,369.75.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPayroll ClassificationAdministrative ReviewNew York LawState Insurance FundEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2011

Celeste Grynberg and Jack J. Grynberg D/B/A Grynberg Petroleum v. M-I L.L.C.

The Grynbergs appealed a summary judgment that denied their petition for bill of review, seeking to overturn a no-answer default judgment in favor of M-I L.L.C. Their arguments included challenges to personal jurisdiction based on allegedly improper service on non-resident defendants and the contention that a motion for new trial did not constitute a general appearance. The court affirmed the judgment against Jack Grynberg, concluding he made a general appearance, thereby waiving his jurisdictional complaint. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Celeste Grynberg, finding a material fact issue regarding whether she was properly served. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to M-I L.L.C.

Summary JudgmentBill of ReviewPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessNonresident DefendantGeneral AppearanceSpecial AppearanceDue ProcessDefault JudgmentMeritorious Defense
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheele v. Murk

The Scheeles, Brian and Cindi, sued doctors Steven Murk and Gary Flangas for alleged negligent medical treatment following Brian's horse-riding injury. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the doctors, prompting the Scheeles to appeal. The appellate court reviewed three potential grounds for the summary judgment: an immunity defense under the Texas Tort Claims Act, issues of causation regarding Brian's prognosis, and Dr. Flangas's claim of no breach due to lack of surgical authority. The court found that genuine issues of material fact existed for all three grounds, concluding that the summary judgment was erroneously granted. The trial court's judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeSummary Judgment ReviewNegligence ClaimsCausation StandardGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActEmployee DefinitionScope of EmploymentMedical Professional JudgmentFact Issue
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2015

Nance v. Crockett County

Jerry A. Nance sued Crockett County, Tennessee, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging unpaid overtime and compensatory time. Both Nance and the County filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court denied the County's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding willfulness of the alleged FLSA violations and Nance's eligibility for the 480-hour compensatory time limit due to his emergency response duties. The court also denied Nance's motion for summary judgment on overtime liability and liquidated damages, citing factual disputes over the actual overtime hours worked and the accuracy of his records. Consequently, both parties' motions for partial summary judgment were denied, and the case will proceed to trial.

FLSAOvertimeCompensatory TimeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWillfulnessEmergency ServicesPublic EmploymentWage and HourEmployment Law
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1999

Padilla v. Carrier Air Conditioning

The plaintiff, Rosie M. Padilla, an employee of Carrier Corporation, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and defamation against the defendant. She claimed injuries related to her back, which she attributed to heavy lifting assignments and a subsequent lack of assistance. Padilla also asserted a demotion, reduced incentives, and lost overtime/holiday pay, as well as experiencing slanderous remarks from her supervisor, Burlie Fuller, and a hostile work environment. The defendant, Carrier Corporation, moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court, after reviewing the evidence including Padilla's deposition testimony, found that she did not suffer an adverse employment decision, nor was there sufficient evidence of racial discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, negligent supervision, or slander under the relevant legal standards. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Employment LawDiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTexas Workers' Compensation ActSlanderNegligent SupervisionTitle VIIFederal Court
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 21,315 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