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. E2007-01917-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2008

Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction v. Jeffrey S. Conner

This case involves an appeal stemming from a construction dispute where Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction (Contractor) sued Jeffrey S. Conner and Tresia Conner (Homeowners) for unpaid construction work, and Homeowners counterclaimed alleging substandard workmanship. After the general sessions court dismissed Contractor's claim and awarded Homeowners $15,000, Contractor appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court sanctioned Contractor for failing to comply with discovery requests regarding expert witnesses, precluding his experts from testifying, and upheld the qualification of Homeowners' expert. Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed Contractor's claims and entered a $55,000 judgment against him. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the imposition of discovery sanctions or the admission of expert testimony.

Appellate ReviewDiscovery SanctionsExpert Witness ExclusionAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court JudgmentAffirmed DecisionBreach of ContractSubstandard WorkmanshipContinuance DenialRule 26
References
25
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07647
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of McCormick v. Terryville Fire Dist.

Claimant John McCormick, a paramedic, appealed from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Board had previously affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation against McCormick for failing to disclose a prior neck injury, leading to a mandatory penalty and disqualification from future indemnity benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, limiting its review to whether the denial was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. The court found that McCormick failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, a material change in condition, or that the Board improperly failed to consider issues, thus upholding the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation Law114-a violationMaterial MisrepresentationIndemnity BenefitsReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2002

Sharp v. Scandic Wall Ltd. Partnership

Gil Sharp, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries on October 31, 1996, when an elevator car he was working on at 40 Wall Street fell 30 feet after he mistakenly cut supporting cables. He sued the premises owner, 40 Wall Street Development Associates, alleging violations of various Labor Law sections and OSHA regulations. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, while Sharp cross-moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, and to amend his bill of particulars. The court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241-a, 241 (6), and OSHA regulations. However, Sharp was granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), with the court finding the defendant liable for failing to provide adequate safety devices.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndustrial CodeWorkplace safetyGravity-related hazardConstruction site accidentFall from heightOwner liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walls Regional Hospital v. Bomar

Nurses Kym Bomar, Laura Cosby, and Cynthia Patterson sued their employer, Walls Regional Hospital, alleging negligence for allowing Dr. George Boyett to sexually harass them and for negligent hiring/credentialing. The Hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the action. The district court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding fact issues regarding the 'personal animosity' exception. The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals, holding that the nurses' injuries occurred in the course of their employment and did not fall under the 'personal animosity' exception, as the harassment was workplace-specific and not rooted in personal animosity transported from outside work. Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy, barring the negligence claim. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment for the Hospital.

Workers' CompensationSexual HarassmentEmployer NegligenceSafe WorkplacePersonal Animosity ExceptionSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewLabor Code
References
8
Case No. 2019-05-0371
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2021

Walls, Bob v. United Technologies Corp.

This case involves a dispute over medical benefits sought by Bob Walls (Employee) against United Technologies Corp. (Employer) following a work-related injury. Two authorized physicians recommended left hip surgery for the Employee, but the Employer's utilization review provider and the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Director recommended non-certification. The trial court ordered the Employer to authorize the treatment, finding the Employer failed to rebut the presumption of medical necessity, but denied attorney's fees. The Appeals Board affirmed the medical benefits order but vacated the denial of attorney's fees, remanding the case for reconsideration of that issue.

Medical Benefits DisputeUtilization ReviewAttorney's FeesMedical Necessity PresumptionHip SurgeryGluteus Medius TearOsteoarthritisAppellate ReviewSettlement Agreement EnforcementPhysician Recommendations
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormick v. Snappy Car Rentals, Inc.

Sharon McCormick sustained two successive work-related injuries, first in 1985 while employed by Snappy Car Rentals, Inc., and then in 1989 while working for Windshield Service Company, Inc. A trial court initially apportioned disability, ordering Snappy to pay 25% and Windshield 55% permanent partial disability. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the judgment against Snappy, applying the 'last injurious injury rule.' This rule dictates that the last employer or its insurer is liable for the entire resulting disability, even if it aggravates a pre-existing condition, and prohibits apportionment between successive employers. Consequently, Windshield, as the second employer, is solely responsible for the 55% permanent partial disability award.

Worker's CompensationSuccessive InjuriesLast Injurious Injury RuleApportionment of LiabilityEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionCervical Spine InjuryMedical Impairment Rating
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2010

McCormick v. 257 W. Genesee, LLC

This is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, in a personal injury action where the plaintiff, Timothy P McCormick, allegedly sustained injuries from a fall at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed, the defendants' motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. The court found that the defendants did not have supervisory control over the work for Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence claims, as the alleged defect arose from the contractor's methods. Furthermore, the court determined that the protruding pin causing the fall was an integral part of the construction work, precluding recovery under various Industrial Code provisions cited by the plaintiffs.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Common Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlHazardous ConditionIndustrial Code ViolationsProtruding Pin
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wall v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Martin Wall sued National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC) for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), alleging his position was eliminated and his responsibilities given to a younger individual. NBC moved for summary judgment, arguing Wall's complaint was time-barred as he filed his claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 357 days after being notified of his termination, exceeding the 300-day limit for New York State claims. Wall contended the filing period should run from when he discovered he was replaced by a younger person (late December 1988), not his termination notice date (October 7, 1988), and argued for equitable tolling due to alleged misleading information from NBC about his job elimination being due to downsizing. The court, presided over by Judge Leisure, found that the cause of action accrued on October 7, 1988, when Wall was notified of his termination, consistent with the principle that the limitations period begins when the discriminatory decision is communicated. The court rejected the application of equitable tolling, finding Wall failed to provide sufficient evidence of extraordinary conduct by NBC that actively misled him or prevented him from exercising his rights. Consequently, the court granted NBC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Wall's complaint as time-barred.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEAStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingAccrual of Cause of ActionTerminationWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04927 [140 AD3d 1047]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2016

Ramirez v. I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denying the defendant-appellant Antonio Iona's cross-motion for summary judgment based on the homeowner's exemption. The plaintiff's decedent was injured after falling from a makeshift ladder while working on a one-family home owned by Antonio Iona, who was also an officer of the general contractor, I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Antonio Iona's extensive involvement in the construction, including making and placing the ladder and instructing workers, negated his eligibility for the homeowner's exemption. Furthermore, the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240(1) violation.

Homeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 240(1) liabilityLabor Law § 241(6) liabilityconstruction site accidentladder fallsummary judgmentpersonal injuryappellate reviewcontractor responsibilityworker safety
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00019 [190 AD3d 422]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2021

Lemache v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Luis Lemache was injured when a pipe rolled onto his foot while relocating a concrete planter at a construction site. He sued MIP One Wall Street Acquisition, LLC and Gilbane Residential Construction, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but modified the order, denying defendants' motion with respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The court found a triable issue of fact as to whether Gilbane Residential Construction exercised supervisory control over the work, particularly regarding safety standards and the use of licensed Bobcat operators.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentSupervisory ControlTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkForeman
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 181 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