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. 1:94-CV 0484
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 1995

KVHP TV PARTNERS, LTD. v. Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc.

Plaintiffs, KVHP TV Partners, Ltd. d/b/a Fox 29 and Calcasieu Communications, Inc., filed a motion to remand their case to state court after defendants, Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc., Texas Television Inc., Viacom International, Inc., and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc., removed it to federal court. The plaintiffs had originally sued in state court alleging tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of Texas antitrust and deceptive trade practices acts. Defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal. The court analyzed the well-pleaded complaint rule, the artful pleading doctrine, and the complete preemption doctrine. Finding no federal question on the face of the complaint and no applicable exceptions, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the 58th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, and ordered Viacom International, Inc. and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs and attorneys' fees incurred due to the removal.

Federal JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand to State CourtWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful Pleading DoctrineComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Antitrust LawCommunications Act of 1934Tortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
25
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05331
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2016

People v. Bonie

This case involves an appeal by nonparty News 12 The Bronx, L.L.C., and its representative Dina Sforza, against an order compelling compliance with a subpoena for unaired video footage. The People sought the footage from an interview with defendant Nasean Bonie, who was indicted for the murder of Ramona Moore. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the People's motion to compel, directing an in camera review and denying News 12's cross-motion to quash the subpoena. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It directed disclosure only of specific portions of the video footage where Bonie discusses killing the victim or their relationship, finding that the People met the necessary showing under New York's Shield Law for these parts, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that the trial judge need not issue further findings.

Subpoena enforcementJournalistic privilegeShield LawNonconfidential materialIn camera reviewCircumstantial evidenceMurder indictmentVideo footageAppellate reviewFreedom of the press
References
7
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Case No. CA 12-00460
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

MILES, JOSEPH v. GREAT LAKES CHEESE OF NEW YORK, INC

Plaintiff Joseph Miles sustained head injuries when struck by falling scaffold planks while working. The Supreme Court denied his motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted defendants' cross-motions to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order by granting plaintiff's motion, finding a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the inadequacy of the safety device to protect him from foreseeable risks related to gravity. The court rejected defendants' arguments that plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of defendants' cross-motions concerning Labor Law § 241 (6) regarding 12 NYCRR 23-5.6 (f).

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law 240(1) ViolationLabor Law 241(6) ClaimGravity-Related HazardProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code RegulationFalling ObjectsConstruction Site Injury
References
11
Case No. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. CA 12-01229
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

STEIGER, GARY v. LPCIMINELLI, INC.

Plaintiff Gary Steiger commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained after tripping and falling while exiting a portable toilet at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer contracted with defendant Orchard Park CCRC, the landowner, for fiber optic installation. Defendant LPCiminelli, Inc. acted as the general contractor and was responsible for placing the portable toilets. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss certain Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against LPCiminelli, Inc. based on a lack of actual notice, and fully dismissing these claims against Orchard Park CCRC. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, ruling that the accident site was not a 'passageway' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). One justice dissented regarding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site AccidentDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeSupervisory ControlPortable Toilet PlacementTrip and Fall
References
40
Case No. 12-CV-2285
Regular Panel Decision

Garnett-Bishop v. New York Community Bancorp, Inc.

This memorandum details five separate actions filed against New York Community Bancorp, Inc. and several individual defendants, stemming from a large-scale reduction in force on October 13, 2011. Twenty-six plaintiffs allege employment discrimination based on age, race, national origin, gender, and/or disability, along with retaliation, violating various federal and New York state laws including Title VII, ADEA, GINA, ADA, Civil Rights Act of 1991, WARN Act, and NYSHRL. The defendants moved to consolidate these actions and also had several motions to dismiss pending. The Court granted the unopposed motion to consolidate the five cases into a single action, 'Garnett-Bishop, et al. v. New York Community Bancorp., Inc., et al.', under Case Number 12-CV-2285. The claims of Plaintiff Diann Titus were severed from the consolidated action, and all other pending motions were denied without prejudice, with leave to renew after the plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint.

Employment DiscriminationReduction in ForceAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEA
References
19
Case No. CA 12-00739
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

KIN, SUMMER v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Summer Kin, a claimant, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during a bridge reconstruction project. She filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against the State of New York, her employer's client and the property owner. The Court of Claims initially denied Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted the State's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the ladder provided improper protection and the State failed to demonstrate Kin's conduct as the sole proximate cause. The court also granted the State's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (iv) and 23-1.21 (a)) inapplicable or insufficiently specific. Kin had abandoned contentions regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawNew YorkAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory Violation
References
9
Case No. 12-08-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2010

State

Billy Joe Burnett appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial, which followed his consent to a protective order. The protective order was sought by the Angelina county attorney on behalf of Sylvia Leonora Holst and issued on June 12, 2008. Burnett subsequently filed multiple motions for new trial, alleging involuntary consent and improper communication by the assistant county attorney. The trial court ultimately overruled his motion on July 18, 2008. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Burnett's failure to provide a complete reporter's record necessary for reviewing the trial court's consideration of evidence.

Motion for New TrialProtective OrderAbuse of DiscretionIncomplete RecordAppellate ProcedureConsent JudgmentEvidentiary HearingAffidavitTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
25
Case No. 14-12-01022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2012

in Re Lambert Adumekwe

Relator Lambert Adumekwe filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, seeking to compel New Hampshire Insurance Company regarding an administrative workers' compensation decision. Adumekwe was appealing a final summary judgment favoring the insurer, which had denied his claim for a broken tooth and jaw. The Court dismissed the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating that mandamus against a non-judge party is only permissible if necessary to enforce the court's jurisdiction, which was not applicable here. The Court also noted that Adumekwe should have filed a reply brief instead of a mandamus petition. Consequently, the Court ordered the mandamus petition to be re-filed as Adumekwe's reply brief in his pending appeal (case number 14-12-00169-CV).

Workers' CompensationMandamusAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionSummary JudgmentPro SeReply BriefInsurance CarrierAdministrative DecisionTexas
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,701 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