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. 80-3578 et al.
Regular Panel Decision

Grubbs v. Bradley

This consolidated class action challenged the constitutionality of conditions of confinement across 12 adult penal institutions in Tennessee. Chief Judge MORTON found that severe overcrowding, deplorable building conditions, unsanitary food practices, pervasive violence, and inadequate medical staffing at various TDOC facilities constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court issued injunctions and ordered remedial plans, including the cessation of double-celling in specific units and closure of unfit buildings, to address these constitutional violations. A special master was appointed to oversee the implementation of the defendants' proposed remedies, while claims regarding dental care and general mental health services were found to be constitutionally adequate.

Prison ConditionsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentOvercrowdingMedical CareSanitationPrison ViolenceClass ActionTennessee PrisonsInjunction
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2015

Matter of Jennifer BB. v. Megan CC.

Petitioner, the maternal aunt, sought custody of her niece from respondents, the child's parents, due to alleged neglect stemming from unsanitary home conditions and unexplained injuries. Family Court initially granted temporary custody to the aunt, citing extraordinary circumstances based on persistent neglect, despite child protective services finding abuse allegations unfounded. However, the parents promptly remedied the home's conditions and demonstrated full cooperation with authorities. The appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, determining that the transient unsanitary conditions, especially after immediate correction and the parents' plan to relocate with family support, did not constitute the "utter parental indifference and irresponsibility" required for extraordinary circumstances to disrupt parental custody. Consequently, the petition for custody was dismissed.

Custody DisputeExtraordinary CircumstancesParental RightsPersistent NeglectChild Protective ServicesFamily LawAppellate ReviewHome ConditionsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00229 [168 AD3d 491]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2019

Sanchez v. 404 Park Partners, LP

Luis Sanchez, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an uncovered floor opening at a work site. He moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the property owner, 404 Park Partners, LP, the general contractor, Sciame Construction, LLC, and subcontractor Cord Contracting Co. Inc., which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the liability findings against these parties, noting the owner and general contractor's statutory duties and the subcontractor's delegated duty to cover floor openings. Additionally, the court modified the lower court's indemnification rulings. It granted conditional full contractual indemnification to Sciame from United Air Conditioning Corp. II and conditional contractual indemnification to 404 Park and Sciame from Cord, contingent on the extent of their respective negligence, while also preserving factual issues concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Sciame.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael McGlone initiated a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action against Contract Callers, Inc. (CCI), Michael McGuire, and William Tim Wertz, alleging unpaid overtime for work performed before and after recorded workdays and during meal breaks. McGlone sought conditional certification for a nationwide collective action of Field Service Representatives (FSRs), asserting a common policy of wage violations, including uncompensated preparatory and concluding tasks, and automatic meal break deductions despite working through them. The court applied a two-step analysis for FLSA collective actions, focusing on the lenient "notice stage" standard. While the plaintiff claimed company-wide misconduct, his evidence for a nationwide class was deemed insufficient, relying primarily on "information and belief." Consequently, the court denied conditional certification for a nationwide class but granted it for FSRs employed in CCI's New York Division, where McGlone demonstrated direct personal knowledge of the alleged violations and supervisory directives. Additionally, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled as of the motion's filing date due to the court's processing time.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayWage ViolationsMeal BreaksUncompensated WorkField Service RepresentativesEquitable TollingNew York Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2017

Vaughn v. Document Group Inc.

This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case concerned a motion for conditional certification of a class of workers. Plaintiff Eugene Vaughn alleged that Defendant The Document Group, Inc. (TDG) misclassified "Manual Laborers and Scanner Operators" as independent contractors, thus failing to pay them overtime wages for hours worked beyond forty per week. The Court reviewed the two-stage approach for FLSA collective actions, requiring evidence of aggrieved individuals, similarly situated plaintiffs, and a desire to opt-in. Vaughn presented sufficient evidence, including an affidavit from another worker, supporting his claims of a common policy of misclassification and similar job duties among the putative class members. Despite TDG's arguments for individualized analysis, the Court found the evidence sufficient to conditionally certify the class and granted Vaughn's motion.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActConditional CertificationCollective ActionIndependent Contractor MisclassificationOvertime WagesWage and Hour DisputeEmployment LawClass ActionLitigation Support Industry
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 4,220 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