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. M2020-00964-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Knowledge Services challenged the award of a statewide contract to Covendis, protesting the Central Procurement Office's (CPO) dismissal of its bid due to an insufficient protest bond. The CPO, and subsequently the State Protest Committee, determined that Knowledge Services failed to submit the correct bond amount, calculated as 5% of the State's estimated maximum liability of $190,000,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-3-514(d)(2). The Chancery Court for Davidson County upheld this decision, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect the State's exposure and limiting judicial review to the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the CPO correctly applied the protest bond statute and that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional evidence.

Bid protestGovernment contractsState procurementProtest bondStatutory interpretationAdministrative lawCommon law writ of certiorariJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionLegislative intent
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Judge McCooe's dissenting opinion argues that the tenant failed to prove the landlord had actual knowledge of her openly and notoriously harbored cats, a prerequisite for waiving a 'no pet' lease provision under Administrative Code of City of New York § 27-2009.1 (b). The dissent criticizes the majority for shifting the burden of proof, mischaracterizing an independent contractor as an agent, and not strictly applying the 'actual knowledge' requirement as established in Seward Park Hous. Corp. v Cohen. McCooe asserts that the tenant's evidence of knowledge was speculative, as her cats usually hid, and workers were not present long-term. Ultimately, the dissenting judge concludes that the trial court's determination that the landlord did not waive its right to enforce the no-pet provision should be affirmed.

Pet PolicyLease WaiverOpen and NotoriousActual KnowledgeIndependent ContractorAgency LawBurden of ProofAdministrative CodeNew York LawLandlord-Tenant Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Plaintiff Alonso Hernandez was severely injured when a hoist, which lacked proper counterweights and securement, collapsed, dragging him from a six-story building. The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding that the hoist was not constructed or operated to provide proper protection. The court rejected the defendant's arguments of recalcitrant worker and sole proximate cause, stating that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of contractual indemnification to the owner, 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp., against the subcontractor, Jumbo Construction Corp., based on the terms of their agreement, as the owner's liability was purely statutory.

Labor Law § 240(1)Hoist CollapseConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1982

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns a dispute between tenants and landlords, initiated by the tenants under common law and the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A jury trial resulted in a judgment favoring tenants for damages and attorneys' fees, although the fee amount was not set. The trial judge subsequently set the attorneys' fees post-trial, prompting the landlords to appeal. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal, ruling that a motion for a new trial was required. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not mandate a new trial motion for errors committed by the trial judge after a jury verdict and not directly involving the jury's actions or findings.

Attorneys' feesAppellate procedureMotion for new trialPost-trial proceedingsJury trialLandlord-tenant disputeUniform Residential Landlord and Tenant ActWaiver of issuesRule 3(e) T.R.A.P.Rule 59 T.R.C.P.
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06093 [210 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2022

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Charles Felix Polonia was injured after tripping on a wooden plank on a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. He filed suit against 14 Sutton Tenants Corporation and Central Construction Management, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Polonia's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss all causes of action against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Labor Law claims were inapplicable and that Central Construction Management did not create the dangerous condition or supervise the work. The court determined that Polonia's fall was not due to a height differential or lack of fall protection as required by the cited Labor Law sections.

Construction AccidentSidewalk BridgeLabor LawSummary JudgmentFall ProtectionIndustrial CodeNegligenceSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

In a personal injury action, a building maintenance worker sued the building's owner and sole tenant after slipping on snow and ice on the roof. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the tenant and denied it to the owner, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for further disclosure. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified. The action was dismissed against the tenant, finding the plaintiff was its special employee. The owner's motion for summary judgment was also granted, as the out-of-possession landlord was not responsible for general maintenance or snow removal, which was the tenant's sole responsibility, and the cause of the fall was not a structural defect.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeOut-of-Possession LandlordSnow and IceBuilding MaintenanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityTenant Responsibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's denial of his motion to set aside a jury verdict concerning personal injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1) against 69th Tenants Corp. The jury had found a violation of the Labor Law but no proximate cause for the plaintiff's injuries, stemming from an incident where he fell from a wobbling ladder while removing a mirror from a ceiling. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that any defect in the ladder was not the proximate cause of the accident. However, the appellate court found that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on Labor Law § 240 (1) as it applies to falling objects, as the mirror's dislodging contributed to the fall. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, the complaint reinstated against 69th Tenants Corp., and the matter is remitted for a new trial on the issue of liability based on the falling object theory.

Personal InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Falling ObjectJury VerdictProximate CauseAppellate ReviewNew TrialLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiff Stanimir Nenadovic, an employee of A-Tech, was injured when a 50-foot suspended scaffold, shared by three workers despite a two-person capacity, broke. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied Liro's motion to renew and ET. Tenants Corp.'s motion to renew, while granting Nenadovic partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Liberty Architectural Products Co., Inc. On appeal, all these orders were unanimously affirmed. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment motions by ET. Tenants Corp. and Prudential & Douglas Elliman regarding contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, breach of contract claims against Liro, Liberty, and A-Tech, and dismissal of Nenadovic's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims against them. The appellate court found plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), holding Liberty as a statutory agent, and upheld the denial of indemnification and dismissal motions due to remaining issues of negligence and prematurity.

Scaffold collapseLabor Law § 240(1) claimSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationBreach of contractStatutory agentPersonal injuryConstruction accidentWorker safety
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 969 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