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

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jowers v. LAKESIDE FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Lynn Jowers sued Lakeside Family and Children’s Services for wrongful termination, alleging discrimination based on his medical condition (atrial fibrillation) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Jowers filed an EEOC complaint more than two years after his termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Lakeside moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, while Jowers cross-moved to dismiss Lakeside's motion, citing ignorance of the law regarding disability discrimination. The court granted Lakeside’s motion, dismissing Jowers’ complaint with prejudice, ruling that his explanation for the late filing was insufficient for equitable tolling, particularly as he had previously filed an EEOC complaint.

Employment DiscriminationADAAtrial FibrillationWrongful TerminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOCMotion to DismissCriminal Background CheckFalsified Employment Application
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal stemming from an original action where NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Ins. Trust sued People Care Inc. for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to workers' compensation contributions. People Care Inc. then initiated a third-party action against its administrators, Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., Cool Risk Management, Inc., LeadingAge New York Services, Inc., and LeadingAge New York, Inc., alleging various causes of action including breach of contract, fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, and alter ego liability. The Supreme Court partially granted motions to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, on review, affirmed the dismissal of some claims (e.g., breach of good faith, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence) due to duplication with contract claims or being time-barred. However, it reversed the dismissal of the second (breach of contract), ninth (negligent misrepresentation), and twelfth (alter ego liability) causes of action, and adjusted the temporal scope for fraud claims, allowing these specific claims to proceed against the third-party defendants.

Third-party actionMotion to dismissBreach of contractBreach of fiduciary dutyFraud claimsNegligence claimsUnjust enrichmentNegligent misrepresentationAlter ego liabilityStatute of limitations
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 17,061 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