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

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antonio Lomeli v. Southwest Shipyard, L.P.

Antonio Lomeli sued Southwest Shipyard, L.P. for negligence after sustaining a serious left leg injury from falling into an open barge hatch while working as a welder. Southwest moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusive remedy provision of the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) as an affirmative defense, claiming Lomeli was its “borrowed employee.” Lomeli contested this, arguing Southwest failed to produce a contract and that he presented evidence raising fact issues on multiple factors of the borrowed employee test. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Southwest. On appeal, the court reviewed the nine-factor borrowed employee test, finding most factors weighed in favor of borrowed employee status, even considering some neutral or opposing factors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Lomeli was Southwest’s borrowed employee, thereby limiting his remedy to LHWCA benefits.

Maritime LawBorrowed Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceAffirmative DefenseEmployer LiabilityWorker InjuryTexas Appellate CourtFifth Circuit PrecedentEmployment Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1991

Edwards v. Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates

The plaintiff, an employee of Hayim & Company, a carpet warehouse, suffered personal injuries when he fell approximately six feet while replacing a plywood shelf at his workplace. He had initially received Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced an action against the premises owner, Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates, alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant owner's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context, and Labor Law § 200 liability was inapplicable as the defendant owner did not maintain direction or control over the plaintiff's duties.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySafe WorkplaceRoutine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewNegligenceNew York Law
References
3
Case No. W2010-00949-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2011

State of Tennessee v. Demario Thomas

Demario Thomas, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, appealed his twenty-three-year sentence as excessive. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the sentence de novo, finding the trial court improperly applied two enhancement factors and failed to consider several mitigating factors, including the defendant's clean criminal record, work history, remorse, and efforts toward rehabilitation. Consequently, the appellate court modified the judgment, reducing Thomas's sentence to twenty-one years and remanding the case for entry of the revised judgment.

Second Degree MurderSentencing AppealEnhancement FactorsMitigating FactorsCriminal HistoryRemorseRehabilitation EffortsFirearm UseRisk to Human LifeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. 03-C-01-9601-CR-00028
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 1997

State v. Bailey

Michael Bailey, the appellant, was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his youngest son, Justin. He appealed, arguing that his Due Process rights were violated due to being denied pain medication during trial, which he claimed hindered his ability to assist counsel. Bailey also contended that his twenty-year sentence was excessive. The appellate court found no evidence of deliberate indifference or significant hindrance to his defense. Furthermore, the court upheld the trial court's application of three enhancing factors (criminal behavior, firearm possession, abuse of trust) and eight mitigating factors in determining the sentence, concluding that the twenty-year confinement was reasonable and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Second Degree MurderSentencing AppealDue Process ViolationMedication DenialExcessive SentenceEnhancing FactorsMitigating FactorsCriminal BehaviorAbuse of TrustParental Trust
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Society of New York Hospital v. Axelrod

The New York Hospital and the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary challenged the Commissioner of Health's denial of Supplemental Hospital Index Factor (SHIF) waivers. The Commissioner had denied these waivers, which provide relief for increased labor costs, based on an "affordability" test. The court found that this test, which assessed a hospital's ability to pay for labor cost increases from its own resources, was arbitrary and capricious. The Public Health Law § 2807 (3) did not authorize the Commissioner to consider "affordability" when certifying hospital reimbursement rates. The Appellate Division's decision, which granted summary judgment to the petitioners, was affirmed but modified to remit the cases to the Commissioner for a determination of SHIF benefits without considering the "affordability" factor.

Hospital reimbursementSHIF waiverlabor costsPublic Health Law § 2807arbitrary and capriciousadministrative agencyrate-settingMedicaid ratesworkers' compensation ratesno-fault insurance
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1987

SOC'Y OF NY HOSP v. Axelrod

The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed a challenge by Society of the New York Hospital and New York Eye & Ear Infirmary against the Commissioner of Health, David Axelrod, concerning the denial of Supplemental Hospital Index Factor (SHIF) waivers. These waivers would allow hospitals to be reimbursed for actual, rather than projected, labor cost increases. The Commissioner denied the applications based on an "affordability" test, deeming the hospitals sufficiently affluent. The Court found this "affordability" test to be arbitrary and capricious, exceeding the statutory mandate under Public Health Law § 2807 (3), which focused on costs related to efficient service production. The decision modified the Appellate Division's order, remitting the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration without the "affordability" factor, rather than directing an immediate award of benefits.

Hospital reimbursementLabor cost waiversAdministrative discretionPublic Health LawArbitrary and capriciousStatutory interpretationRate-settingAgency overreachHealthcare financeJudicial review of administrative action
References
6
Case No. 2-05-355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

Twenty Wings Ltd., D/B/A Hooters v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Partnership for Community Values The Hon. Bill Zedler The Hon. Ron Wright The Hon. Steve McCollum Mrs. Leslie Recine Mrs. Melba McDow The Hon. Patricia A. Hardy Mr. Barry D. Johnson Mrs. Reland Gonzalez

This case addresses whether a trial court possessed the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling an administrative law judge to dismiss an administrative proceeding based on res judicata. Twenty Wings, Ltd. d/b/a Hooters, sought a mixed beverage permit, which was contested by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and other appellees. After the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied a motion to dismiss, the appellees filed a proceeding in district court, which subsequently granted a writ of mandamus. The appellate court determined that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the TABC and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to adjudicate the substantive legal and factual issues concerning mixed beverage permits. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject matter jurisdiction to issue the mandamus order.

MandamusExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative LawRes JudicataAlcoholic Beverage PermitTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionTABCSOAH
References
4
Case No. 06-15-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2015

Tochril, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission

This case involves an appeal by Tochril Incorporated (also known as Health Force) against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). Health Force challenged the TWC's administrative decision classifying its healthcare workers as "employees" rather than independent contractors, which led to the assessment of unemployment taxes. The appeal contests the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the TWC, arguing that the court improperly excluded evidence, failed to recognize genuine issues of material fact under the Twenty Factor Test, and ignored consistent findings from federal agencies like the IRS and DOL, which had classified the same workers as independent contractors. The core legal issue is the correct worker classification for unemployment tax purposes.

Worker ClassificationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusUnemployment TaxTexas Workforce CommissionSummary Judgment AppealTwenty Factor TestIRS Audit FindingsDOL Audit FindingsLabor Law
References
86
Showing 1-10 of 2,156 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