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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06274
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2025

DaSilva v. Super P57, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding a Labor Law claim. Plaintiff Ivoir DaSilva was injured after falling from an unsecured plank, found to be 1.5 feet above an awning, due to an improperly designed fall prevention system lacking adequate tie-off points. The court rejected defendants' argument that DaSilva was the sole proximate cause, finding no evidence for a recalcitrant worker defense and the scissor lift argument unpreserved. Consequently, the court affirmed DaSilva's entitlement to partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), deeming claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) academic.

Workplace SafetyElevation HazardLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseFall PreventionSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. 04-19-00538-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

William Alec Tisdall, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Spine & Joint Pain Specialists v. Thomas Varebrook and Rebecca Varebrook

William Alec Tisdall, M.D., and his medical practice appealed a final judgment stemming from a medical negligence lawsuit initiated by Thomas and Rebecca Varebrook. The jury found Tisdall negligent, awarding substantial damages after Thomas developed a severe septic sacroiliac joint infection following steroid injections administered by Dr. Tisdall, which left him permanently disabled and unable to continue his police career. On appeal, Tisdall argued that the trial court erred by allowing improper jury argument, admitting cumulative and prejudicial independent medical examinations, and denying a motion for mistrial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury argument was invited error, the medical examination evidence was properly admitted given its probative value and lack of unfair prejudice, and any error regarding the motion for mistrial was unpreserved and, if preserved, cured by the court's instruction to disregard.

Medical negligenceJury verdict appealEvidentiary rulingsImproper jury argumentIndependent medical examinationsMotion for mistrialInstruction to disregardStandard of careCausationDamages award
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bart v. Miller

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order and judgment confirming an arbitration award. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order because the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The judgment itself was affirmed. The appellant's argument that the award violated strong public policy was unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the arbitrators' award was not made in manifest disregard of the law or facts, as the appellant failed to identify any disregarded legal principle.

Arbitration AwardAppeal DismissedJudgment AffirmedPublic Policy ArgumentUnpreserved for ReviewManifest Disregard of LawCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewNassau County Supreme CourtArbitrators' Award
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06970 [188 AD3d 616]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Sanchez v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendant Delta Airlines, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff Jose Junco Sanchez alleged he sustained injuries while at work. The court affirmed this decision, stating that plaintiff's claims against Delta, his employer, are barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, the plaintiff's argument regarding the intentional tort exception to the Workers' Compensation Law was deemed unpreserved and unavailing. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional Tort ExceptionDismissalAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentEmployer LiabilityWorkplace InjuryBronx CountyUnpreserved Argument
References
2
Case No. 14-22-00828-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

BDFI, LLC v. Boxer Property Management Corporation

BDFI, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment in favor of Boxer Property Management Corporation. BDFI argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motions for continuance and its motion for new trial, and by dismissing the jury panel to conduct a bench trial. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying continuances due to insufficient cause and unpreserved arguments. Additionally, BDFI failed to set up a meritorious defense for the motion for new trial, and waived its right to a jury trial by not appearing for trial.

Post-answer default judgmentMotion for continuanceMotion for new trialJury trial waiverBreach of contractTrial court discretionAppellate reviewCivil procedureMeritorious defenseTexas law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bond v. York Hunter Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff, a demolition worker, sustained injuries while dismounting a demolition vehicle. He claimed his foot slipped on a greasy track, causing him to fall approximately three feet. The court found that the incident did not involve an elevation-related risk as defined by Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the defendant had created or had prior knowledge of the hazardous greasy condition, thereby undermining his Labor Law § 200 claim. Arguments pertaining to Industrial Code regulations were dismissed as either unpreserved or lacking merit. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Demolition worker injuryVehicle exit injuryGreasy trackLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Industrial CodeElevation-related riskConstruction site accidentPremises liabilityWorker's compensation appeal
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 02068 [126 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2015

Matter of State of New York Off. of Mental Health v. Dennis J.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order committing Dennis J. to a secure treatment facility after findings of mental abnormality and dangerousness as a sex offender. The court upheld the Supreme Court's decision to permit an expert to testify about an email from a social worker treating Dennis J., rejecting arguments regarding HIPAA and due process as unpreserved or without merit. It found the expert testimony reliable and its probative value outweighed potential prejudice, with the jury properly instructed. The decision underscores the court's discretion in admitting expert testimony in civil commitment proceedings.

Mental Health LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentExpert TestimonyHIPAADue ProcessAppellate ReviewMental AbnormalityDangerous Sex OffenderEvidentiary Rules
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07317
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2020

McMahon v. Cobblestone Lofts Condominium

The Cobblestone Lofts Condominium (Cobblestone) appealed an order denying its motion to vacate a note of issue and compel the production of an unredacted settlement agreement. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court ruled that Cobblestone's argument regarding untimely objections was unpreserved for review, as it was never raised before the IAS court. Furthermore, the plaintiffs and Walter B. Melvin Architects, LLC (WBMA) had complied with a preliminary conference order that explicitly limited disclosure to a redacted settlement agreement. Cobblestone failed to demonstrate that the unredacted settlement agreement terms were material or necessary to its defense or claims.

Discovery disputeNote of issueSettlement agreementUnpreserved argumentAppellate reviewCPLR 3101 (a)Materiality of evidencePreliminary conference orderRedactionTimeliness of objections
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guillo v. NYC Housing Authority

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from February 6, 2013, which denied her claim for benefits related to work-induced depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The Board had reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's finding, concluding that the claimant failed to demonstrate that the work-related stress was 'greater than that which other similarly situated workers experienced.' The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported that the stress was not unusual. The court also noted that claimant's argument regarding a stress-related physical injury was unpreserved for review due to not being raised before the Board.

work-related depressionoccupational stressmental injury claimunusual stress standardworkers' compensation benefits denialappellate affirmanceemployer's testimony creditedclaimant's credibilityunpreserved argument
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,042 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