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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This appeal addresses whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's Extra-Hazardous Employer Program is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The Ben Robinson Company was designated extra-hazardous following a fatal workplace accident, leading to mandated safety inspections and an accident prevention plan. The Commission's arguments for dismissing the case, including mootness and the exclusivity of the Administrative Procedure Act, were rejected. The court concluded that the Program, as currently administered, is preempted by the OSH Act where it regulates workplace safety issues already covered by federal standards. The decision reverses the trial court's summary judgment and remands the case for a determination of costs and attorney's fees.

Occupational Safety and Health ActOSH Act PreemptionExtra-Hazardous Employer ProgramTexas Workers’ Compensation CommissionWorkplace SafetyState RegulationFederal PreemptionMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
15
Case No. 2016-02-0380
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2017

LaGuardia, Kathleen v. Total Holdings USA, Inc. d/b/a Hutchinson Sealing Systems

Kathleen Delores LaGuardia sustained an ankle injury from a fall at her workplace, Total Holdings USA, Inc., which the employer subsequently denied. An initial expedited hearing found insufficient evidence that an employment hazard caused her slip and fall, leading to a denial of benefits. Following this, Total Holdings moved for summary judgment, arguing Ms. LaGuardia could not prove her injury "arose out of" employment, as she consistently stated she did not know the cause of her fall. Despite her treating physician relating the injury to a work slip and potential workplace hazards being identified, the court determined that mere speculation was insufficient to establish causation. Consequently, the court granted Total Holdings' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ms. LaGuardia's case with prejudice.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentArising Out of EmploymentSlip and FallCausationBurden of ProofTennessee LawEmployment HazardAnkle InjuryDismissed with Prejudice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coleman v. St. Thomas Hospital

Plaintiffs, employees of St. Thomas Hospital, sued their employer for common law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress after being exposed to hazardous levels of carbon monoxide at their workplace, the St. Thomas Hospital Employees Credit Union. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that workers' compensation law provided the exclusive remedy, but the trial court denied it, concluding the injuries did not 'arise out of' employment. On extraordinary appeal, the court reversed this decision, finding that despite carbon monoxide not being a typical hazard for a credit union, the specific physical environment of their workplace (above an improperly vented water heater) made it a risk inherent to their employment. Therefore, the injuries had a causal connection to the employment, and the workers' compensation law barred the tort claims.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCarbon Monoxide ExposureSummary JudgmentArising Out Of EmploymentIn The Course Of EmploymentNegligenceEmotional DistressWorkplace HazardCausal Connection
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. 126064
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2019

Leggio v. State of New York

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the State of New York and dismissing a claim filed by inmate Deborah Leggio. Leggio sought damages for injuries sustained after tripping over a tree stump while working at Albion Correctional Facility. The court held that the State's duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace does not extend to hazards inherent in the work being performed, especially when such hazards are open and obvious. As Leggio was tasked with cleaning branches of a felled tree and was aware of the stump, it was deemed an inherent and obvious hazard, negating the State's duty to warn. Consequently, the court found no basis for liability against the State.

Inmate InjuryUnsafe WorkplaceSummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious HazardDuty to WarnCorrectional FacilityAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityTree Stump
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Trotman v. New York State Courts

Claimant, a senior court officer, was injured after slipping on ice on a public sidewalk near his workplace, the Clinton County Government Center, shortly before his shift. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that accidents on public streets away from the workplace are generally not compensable unless there is a special hazard at that point and a close association of the access route with the premises. As the sidewalk was public, not controlled by the employer, and the ice was a general danger unrelated to employment, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawOff-Premises InjuryCourse of EmploymentPublic SidewalkSlipping AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleAccess RouteAppellate ReviewNew York LawWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bernard v. Holiday House of Sloatsburg

The claimant, a stockroom manager at a restaurant, was injured in a fall at a gas station adjacent to the New York State Thruway on her way to work on November 10, 1980. She was following a customary route from a designated employee parking area to an overpass leading to her workplace. The fall occurred due to spilled diesel oil. The central legal question was whether this off-premises accident arose out of and in the course of her employment, thereby entitling her to compensation. The court affirmed the decision, ruling that the accident, which took place on the normal and most accessible route to employment and involved a hazard incurred along the way, was indeed a hazard of employment.

Workers' CompensationOff-Premises InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentEmployee ParkingNormal RouteHazard of EmploymentRockland CountyStockroom ManagerThruway Accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 2023-04-00747
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2023

Redmon, Wetonia v. Dr. Daniel Jefferson Barnes

Wetonis A. Redmon sought medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a right-arm fracture that occurred at work. During an Expedited Hearing on August 1, 2023, the Court found that although the injury happened in the course and scope of her employment, Ms. Redmon failed to establish that it arose primarily from the conditions of her employment. Ms. Redmon tripped and fell while carrying a tray, sustaining a displaced comminuted fracture in her right arm, but could not identify a specific workplace hazard causing the fall. The Court determined the injury was idiopathic and lacked a peculiar or additional employment hazard. Consequently, the Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits, as well as attorney's fees.

Idiopathic InjuryWorkplace FallRight Arm FractureTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment DenialWorkers' Compensation ClaimsCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployment HazardCausationExpedited Hearing
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,452 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