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
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. ADJ2040506
Regular
Mar 30, 2012

DOLORES FERREIRA vs. AXIOM STAFF MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Dolores Ferreira, who sustained an industrial injury in 2005. A WCJ awarded 8% permanent disability, but apportioned 75% to a pre-existing congenital condition, syringomyelia, based on a QME's report. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the QME's apportionment report lacked substantial medical evidence explaining "how and why" the congenital condition caused the disability. The matter is returned to the trial level for further development of the medical record regarding apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorSyringomyeliaCongenital ConditionSubstantial Medical EvidenceCausation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1981

Lent v. Bethesda Hospital

Claimant, a nurse's aide, sustained a compensable back injury in 1976. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision finding the claimant totally industrially disabled, arguing she was only partially disabled due to a pre-existing congenital back condition. The court found substantial evidence in medical expert testimonies to support the Board's conclusion that the injury, superimposed on the congenital condition, resulted in total disability. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryCongenital ConditionTotal DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceNurse's AideAppellate ReviewPre-existing ConditionDisability Benefits
References
3
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. ADJ9065052
Regular
May 13, 2015

MARK SUAREZ vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

This case involves applicant Mark Suarez, a deputy sheriff, who suffered a heart injury on February 4, 2013. Initially, the WCJ found the injury was due to a congenital condition and not work-related. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Labor Code section 3212.5's "heart trouble" presumption for law enforcement officers applied. The Board determined that while medical evidence indicated a congenital cause, the statute's "anti-attribution" clause prevents rebutting the presumption solely based on a pre-existing condition without evidence of a contemporaneous non-work-related event. Consequently, the Board amended the prior order to find the injury industrially caused, remanding for further proceedings on benefits.

Labor Code section 3212.5heart trouble presumptiondeputy sheriffindustrial injurycongenital conditionaortic stenosisrebuttable presumptionanti-attribution clausenonwork-related eventMuznik
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Martinez

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund (carrier) appealed a summary judgment affirming a ruling by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel upheld a hearing officer's decision that the carrier waived its opportunity to contest the compensability of Martinez’s injury. Martinez was injured in 1993, and in a 1995 benefit review conference, the carrier agreed in writing to the compensability of his injuries, including his heart condition, and waived the right to dispute it. Later, the carrier attempted to dispute the heart condition, claiming it was a newly discovered congenital defect (HOC), but evidence showed they were aware of a similar condition (IHSS) at the time of the waiver. The appeals board and trial court concluded that HOC and IHSS were essentially the same condition, and the carrier's waiver was binding, thereby affirming the summary judgment in Martinez’s favor.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiverEstoppelCompensabilityHeart ConditionHydrogen Sulfide ExposureBenefit Review ConferenceAppeals PanelJudicial Review
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,227 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