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. 05-17-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

Dr. Eric VanderWerff. D.C. v. the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Ryan Brannan, in His Official Capacity

This case concerns an appeal by Dr. Eric Vanderwerff, a chiropractor, against the judgments favoring Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut and Commissioner Ryan Brannan. Dr. Vanderwerff was denied full reimbursement for medical services provided to a workers' compensation claimant, as he was not part of Travelers' healthcare network. He argued that the claimant was not properly notified of network requirements under Texas Insurance Code Section 1305.451, specifically challenging whether a web link to a list of providers constituted adequate 'written notice'. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgments, holding that an electronic link satisfies the statutory requirement for 'written description,' particularly as the Texas Administration Code allows electronic format notice with an available paper version. The court also dismissed Dr. Vanderwerff's other declaratory judgment claims, reiterating that these issues were not properly exhausted through administrative remedies or fell outside the court's jurisdiction.

Insurance LawTexas Civil ProcedureAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionSummary JudgmentHealthcare NetworksWritten NoticeElectronic Communication
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amabile v. City of Buffalo

Estelle Amabile fell and was injured due to a defective sidewalk in the City of Buffalo, caused by a protruding stop-sign post and cracked concrete. She and her husband sued the City, which moved for summary judgment citing a lack of prior written notice as required by the City Charter. Plaintiffs argued for a "constructive notice" exception, but the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's denial, granting summary judgment to the City. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that constructive notice cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of prior written notice for sidewalk defects, thus upholding legislative intent to protect municipalities from liability without actual written notice.

Municipal liabilitySidewalk defectPrior written noticeConstructive noticeSummary judgmentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewNegligencePersonal injuryBuffalo City Charter
References
13
Case No. M2002-00892-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2003

Amprite Electric v. Tennessee Stadium Group

Amprite Electric Company, an electrical subcontractor, sued Tennessee Stadium Group, LLP, a contractor, for compensation for extra work performed on the Adelphia Stadium project. Despite a subcontract requiring written change orders and compensation at actual costs plus 10%, this requirement was mutually waived. Amprite submitted claims based on industry manuals, which were significantly higher than its actual costs. The trial court initially found the contract abandoned and awarded Amprite a large sum based on an implied contract. However, the Court of Appeals held that only the written change order requirement was waived, affirming the original contract's compensation terms. The judgment was modified to allow Amprite a recovery of $170,084.00, based on its actual costs, while vacating awards for builder's risk claims and additional interest on retained funds, and reversing the pre-judgment interest award due to Amprite's inflated claims.

Construction LawContract DisputeWaiver of Contractual ProvisionsChange OrdersSubcontractor CompensationActual CostsQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelPre-judgment Interest
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coffey v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets North

On December 20, 2004, a claimant sustained a hip injury after slipping and falling at work. Although Workers' Compensation Law § 18 requires written notice within 30 days, the claimant filed her report approximately four months later. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, finding that the employer had actual knowledge of the accident because a coworker witnessed it and informed the assistant manager, who then aided the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant discussed her injury with the employer's manager in January 2005. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that actual knowledge on the part of the employer negates the requirement for timely written notice.

Workers CompensationHip InjurySlip and FallNotice RequirementActual KnowledgeEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionTimely NoticeExcused Notice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2009

Babenzien v. Town of Fenton

A plaintiff was injured on Fuller Road in the Town of Fenton when a low-hanging wire, owned by railroad companies, struck him. The day prior, Town of Fenton employees witnessed a wire break at the same location but only notified the railroad via voicemail without further action. The Supreme Court denied the Town's motion for summary judgment, citing actual notice despite a lack of prior written notice as required by local law. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the Town was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish an exception to the prior written notice requirement. The court found no evidence that the Town's employees created the dangerous condition, thus barring the plaintiff's claim against the Town.

Summary JudgmentPrior Written Notice LawMunicipal LiabilityHighway DefectRailroad Crossing AccidentAffirmative Act of NegligenceSpecial Use ExceptionAppellate Court ReversalPersonal InjuryDuty to Warn
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2004

Cappiello v. Johnson

The Town of Orangetown appealed a Supreme Court order denying its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiffs alleged that the Town created a hazardous icy condition by plowing snow onto the sides of the road, which then melted and refroze across the road, causing a vehicle to skid and hit the plaintiffs' vehicle. The Town argued that prior written notice of icy conditions was required under Town Law § 65-a. However, the court found that prior written notice is not required when a municipality is alleged to have created the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court properly denied the Town's motion for summary judgment as the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact regarding the Town's creation of the dangerous condition. The order was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityIcy ConditionsSnow PlowingHazardous ConditionPrior Written NoticeRoad MaintenanceVehicle SkidAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

This worker's compensation case addresses the allocation of judgment for total and permanent disability between the employer, Tyson Foods, Inc., its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company, and the Second Injury Fund of Tennessee. The plaintiff, Robert E. Arnold, was found totally and permanently disabled. The Chancellor originally held Tyson Foods and Travelers fully responsible, concluding they failed to satisfy the "written records" requirement of T.C.A. § 50-1027, which mandates documented employer knowledge of a pre-existing impairment. Despite the employer having actual knowledge of the plaintiff's patent handicap, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Chancellor's decision, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with the statutory written records requirement for the Second Injury Fund to incur liability.

Second Injury FundPre-existing DisabilityWritten Records RequirementEmployer KnowledgeTotal Permanent DisabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewAllocation of LiabilityHandicapped EmploymentTennessee Code Annotated
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 1991

Pinelawn Cemetery v. Local 365 Cemetery Workers

The case involves a petitioner's appeal to stay arbitration concerning the discharge of employee Edgordo Aponte. Petitioner contended that Aponte's claim was not timely filed as per the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which required claims to be filed with the Union within 30 days and registered with the Employer within 10 days thereafter. Aponte was discharged on February 5, 1990, and the union orally notified the employer around February 8, 1990, but a written demand for arbitration was not sent until March 22, 1990, exceeding the 40-day period. The lower court determined that the CBA did not require written registration, and historical practice involved oral discussions for grievances. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioner's application, and this decision was unanimously affirmed, finding that the terms of the parties' agreement had been substantially complied with.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeTimelinessNotice RequirementOral AgreementContract InterpretationSubstantial ComplianceAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. Lockheed Aircraft Service Co.

Harvey Baker sued Lockheed Aircraft Service Company and Bob Savage for breach of an alleged employment contract for a position in Iran. Baker claimed he accepted an oral offer, which Lockheed later withdrew, citing unsatisfactory reference checks as a condition precedent. The jury found that Lockheed's revocation was based on information from these checks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the written offer was tentative and subject to contingencies. The court emphasized that the statute of frauds required a complete written memorandum, and the parol evidence rule prevented converting a conditional written agreement into an unconditional oral one. Plaintiff failed to prove the satisfaction of the condition precedent.

Breach of ContractEmployment AgreementCondition PrecedentStatute of FraudsParol Evidence RuleContractual DisputeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictOffer of EmploymentWithdrawal of Offer
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,505 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