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. 03-03-00587-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Luzstella Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corporation

This is a summary judgment case where Luzstella Arbelaez appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Just Brakes Corporation. Arbelaez sued Just Brakes for vicarious liability after an employee, Brian Paul, collided with her while on a breakfast run for his manager and co-workers. The district court ruled that Paul was not within the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court reviewed the decision de novo, finding that Just Brakes failed to prove as a matter of law that Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment, citing evidence that the errand was a 'first assignment,' routinely done, benefited the employer, and Paul was reimbursed and 'on the clock.' Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating that genuine fact issues exist regarding Paul's employment scope.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployee NegligenceAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewFact IssueEmployer BenefitDeviation from EmploymentTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corp.

This case involves an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Just Brakes Corporation, where the district court determined that employee Brian Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment during a collision with Luz-stella Arbelaez. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the decision, considering evidence that Paul was on a manager-requested breakfast run, on the clock, and that this routine benefited the employer. The court concluded that Just Brakes failed to conclusively prove that Paul was not acting within the scope of his employment. Consequently, the summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to address the vicarious liability claim.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityNegligence LawsuitAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewEmployee ErrandManager InstructionBenefit to Employer
References
35
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1994

New York Air Brake Corp. v. General Signal Corp.

This case addresses a labor dispute concerning employee transfer rights between New York Air Brake Corporation and several unions (Local 761 and Local 761A), along with General Signal Corporation. Following an arbitration award that was not fully satisfactory to all parties, a settlement known as the 'Good Friday Agreement' was reached to modify and implement the award. Defendant Local 761 later objected to the enforcement of this agreement, raising questions about the court's jurisdiction and the parties' authority to settle. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, finding that the parties had the legal capacity to enter into an oral settlement agreement, which was enforceable, and thus approved the Good Friday Agreement, denying the motions to confirm the original arbitration award or remand to the arbitrator.

Labor DisputeSettlement EnforcementArbitration ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawFederal Court JurisdictionOral SettlementEmployee RightsUnion RepresentationGrievance Resolution
References
19
Case No. NOR 0207190
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

CHRIS RACHAL vs. NELSON DODGE, INC./NELSON GROUP OF DEALERSHIPS dba NELSON HONDA

The applicant sustained admitted injuries from a motor vehicle accident while test driving a car for his employer. The applicant sought increased compensation under Labor Code section 4553, alleging serious and willful misconduct by the employer due to faulty brakes, but this was denied. The Appeals Board found insufficient evidence that faulty brakes proximately caused the injury or that the employer had knowledge of any alleged defect, upholding the WCJ's decision.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553increased compensationindustrial injuryproximate causefaulty brakesemployer knowledgeepilepsyinattentionseizure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Reynolds v. Masick

The case concerns a claimant who was denied workers' compensation benefits after being injured in an automobile accident caused by faulty brakes on their vehicle. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found in favor of the claimant. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, stating that the claimant knowingly operated a vehicle with defective brakes, violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375(1) and (32). The court emphasized that Workers' Compensation Law § 205(4) bars benefits for injuries resulting from an illegal act causally related to the injury. The current court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, dismissing the claim on the grounds that the illegal act of operating a defective vehicle was the direct cause of the accident, thus disentitling the claimant to benefits.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentDefective VehicleIllegal ActCausationVehicle and Traffic LawWorkers' Compensation LawDenial of BenefitsAppellate DivisionCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. 2019-06-1230
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2020

Wade, John v. Karr Transpotation, Inc.

John Wade, an Army veteran, sought temporary disability and medical benefits after a severe trucking accident while employed by Karr Transportation, Inc. The employer disputed the claim, citing intoxication, safety rule violations, and a potential intentional act by Mr. Wade. The Court held an expedited hearing and determined that Mr. Wade violated company safety rules by not wearing his seatbelt and possessing alcohol in his truck. Despite his claims of faulty brakes and military training influencing his actions, the Court found his excuses invalid. Consequently, the Court denied his request for benefits, concluding he was unlikely to succeed at a full hearing on the merits.

Trucking AccidentSafety Rule ViolationIntoxication DefensePTSDSuicide Attempt AllegationSeatbelt PolicyAlcohol PolicyExpedited HearingBenefits DenialEmployee Misconduct
References
1
Case No. 13-02-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

Guadalupe M. Hernandez v. Gary Honish

Appellants, including Guadalupe M. Hernandez, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to appellee Gary Honish. Appellants contended the trial court erred because a material fact existed regarding whether Honish owed a common-law or statutory duty and whether the lack of a slow-moving-vehicle emblem was the proximate cause of an accident leading to the death of Juan Jose Hernandez. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and found no common-law duty for an escort vehicle and no statutory duty under the Texas Labor Code, as Honish did not meet the criteria for its application. Furthermore, the court concluded that the summary judgment evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of proximate cause, noting the striking vehicle's driver's testimony about his own vehicle's faulty brakes rather than the absence of a slow-moving-vehicle emblem. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentCommon Law DutyStatutory DutyTexas Labor CodeProximate CauseFarm AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1997

Sam v. Town of Rotterdam

Plaintiff Sien Sam, a brake technician, was injured on February 2, 1993, when a police vehicle owned by the defendant experienced brake failure at Salisbury Chevrolet, Inc. Sam's complaint alleged derivative liability of the defendant as the vehicle owner and negligence for failing to disclose the vehicle's dangerous braking system. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that objections to the technical form of a supporting deposition must be preserved at the trial level. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to present evidence identifying the cause of the brake failure or demonstrating the defendant's knowledge of the defect.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationEvidentiary RulesAffidavit RequirementVehicle NegligenceBrake FailureOwner LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 103 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