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
Sep 21, 1999

Taylor v. V.A.W. of America, Inc.

Scott Taylor, an employee of Vanguard, Inc. and Vanguard Organization, Inc., suffered personal injuries when he fell through a roof owned by V.A.W. of America, Inc. while performing repairs, having been supplied no safety devices. Taylor initially moved for partial summary judgment against VAW under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, as was VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard. On appeal, the court reversed the prior order, granting Taylor's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard, concluding that VAW failed to provide required safety devices and was entitled to indemnification.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteScaffold LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. United States

Plaintiffs George A. Taylor and Sally Taylor brought an action against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injuries Mr. Taylor sustained on February 4, 1994. Mr. Taylor slipped on icy snow while entering the Cicero-Clay Post Office in Cicero, New York. The case was tried without a jury, commencing on November 16, 1998, in Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, claiming the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, but the defendant denied negligence and lack of notice. Applying New York state law, the court required proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous icy conditions. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's dangerous condition prior to the incident, as no complaints were made before Taylor's slip. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCANegligenceSlip and FallIcy ConditionsPost OfficePremises LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive NoticeFederal Court
References
8
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision upholding New York City Local Laws 18 and 19 (2001), which unilaterally expanded the definition of uniformed services employees to alter the scope of collective bargaining. Judge Read contends that these local laws are preempted by the statewide Taylor Law, which grants the Mayor exclusive authority over negotiating with municipal unions. The dissent highlights the historical context of New York City's collective bargaining system, established through a tripartite agreement in 1966 and subsequently codified, emphasizing that changes to this scope were traditionally negotiated, not legislated by the City Council. The opinion asserts that the Council's actions infringe upon the Mayor's management rights and exceed its legislative authority under Civil Service Law § 212, which only permits local legislation in specific areas like representation status or impasse procedures. Judge Read warns that the decision destabilizes long-settled labor relations and allows the Council to act as an unauthorized negotiator.

Taylor LawCollective BargainingPublic Sector Labor RelationsLocal Law PreemptionNew York City Administrative CodeMunicipal UnionsCivil Service LawExecutive OrdersLegislative AuthorityManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. 05-17-01221-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2018

the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Charles Wayne Taylor and Rosemary Taylor

On April 21, 2014, Charles Taylor underwent bladder surgery at a VA hospital, alleging medical malpractice by surgeons employed by The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). The Taylors initially filed suit in federal court, which was dismissed. After providing pre-suit notice, they filed suit in state court against "University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center/The University of Texas System," serving only UT System. After the statute of limitations expired, they amended their petition to name UTSW and served its president. UTSW filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claims were time-barred. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the trial court's denial of the plea, finding that the Taylors failed to properly sue or serve UTSW within the limitations period, and the doctrines of misnomer and misidentification did not apply. The court rendered judgment dismissing the Taylors' claims for want of jurisdiction.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityMisnomer DoctrineMisidentification DoctrineService of ProcessTexas Court of AppealsDismissal for Want of Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Appellants Robert B. Taylor and R.B.T. Investments, Inc. (collectively, "Taylor") appealed a summary judgment in favor of appellees Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, "Allstate"). Taylor sued Allstate for negligence, vicarious liability, tortious interference, breach of contract, and statutory claims related to Allstate's handling of an automobile accident defense that resulted in a settlement exceeding Taylor's insurance coverage. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on Taylor’s claims for negligence, vicarious liability, and tortious interference, concluding that Texas law does not recognize these causes of action in this context outside of a Stowers claim. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment regarding Taylor’s breach of contract and statutory claims, holding that the Stowers doctrine does not negate an insured's contractual and statutory rights. The denial of Taylor's motion to replead was also affirmed as he had already amended his pleadings.

Insurance DisputeSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsVicarious LiabilityTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractStatutory ClaimsStowers DoctrineInsurer DutiesAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04288
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2021

Taylor v. Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael A. Taylor, an employee of Durham Staffing, Inc., was assigned to work at Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc. and was injured there. He commenced an action against Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc., which moved for summary judgment, asserting that Taylor was a special employee and his claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the order, finding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it exercised complete control over the plaintiff's work, thus raising a triable issue of fact regarding the special employee doctrine. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DivisionEmployer ControlStaffing Agency LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTriable Issue of FactComplaint ReinstatementLabor Law Litigation
References
8
Case No. 05-20-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Bryan Taylor and Melissa Taylor v. Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Frisco

Bryan and Melissa Taylor appealed a trial court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Baylor Scott & White Medical Center-Frisco in a healthcare liability lawsuit. The Taylors alleged negligence related to spine surgery performed on Bryan Taylor by Dr. Stephen Courtney at Baylor. Their claims included failures in preventing unnecessary surgeries due to physician-owned distributorships (PODs), enforcing policies for medical device purchases, and physician retention. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in striking inadmissible hearsay evidence (Dr. Carmody's deposition) and concluding that the Taylors failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their negligence and gross negligence claims against Baylor.

Healthcare LiabilityMedical NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPhysician-Owned DistributorshipsPODsHearsay EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CarePeer Review
References
41
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05983
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Matter of Taylor v. Little Angels Head Start

Claimant, Laverne Taylor, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bilateral knee condition, alleging it was work-related due to changes in her job duties at Little Angels Head Start. She filed her claim over a year after leaving employment, and the employer controverted it due to lack of timely notice under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, denying the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of a work-related injury and was prejudiced by the delay, as Taylor did not inform them of the work-related nature of her condition until much later.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 18Causally-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceBilateral Knee ConditionMedical Leave
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zeluck v. Board of Education

The case involves a motion by the Attorney-General to dismiss a petition filed by certain teachers. The teachers sought to enjoin the Superintendent of Schools from implementing payroll deductions mandated by Civil Service Law section 210, also known as the Taylor Law, for their alleged participation in a strike. The petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional, infringing upon rights to free association, speech, and equal protection, and that its payroll deduction provisions constituted a bill of attainder and violated due process. The court, citing precedents, rejected the arguments regarding free association, speech, and equal protection. It also found the due process procedures for payroll deductions sufficient, concluding the law was not a bill of attainder. Therefore, the motion to dismiss was granted.

Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employee StrikesPayroll DeductionsDue ProcessFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionConstitutionality of StatuteMotion to Dismiss
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 17,055 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