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. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Comfort

The defendant, convicted in 1982 of murder, attempted murder, and drug charges, had some of his murder convictions later reversed on appeal. He subsequently filed multiple CPL article 440 motions to set aside his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest and a failure to pursue defenses, and arguing that he was incompetent to stand trial. The court denied his motions to vacate the judgment, finding no sufficient evidence of incompetency and that prior arguments regarding counsel were procedurally barred or refuted by court records. However, the appellate court reversed the portion of the order that resentenced the defendant, noting he was resentenced in his absence and the People conceded the need for resentencing. The case was remitted to the Steuben County Court for resentencing, with discretion to order an updated presentence investigation report.

ResentencingCriminal Procedure LawIneffective Assistance of CounselCompetency to Stand TrialConflict of InterestAppellate ReviewDrug ChargesMurderAttempted MurderPrior Convictions
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1994

Avalanche Wrecking Corp. v. New York State Insurance Fund

National Union Fire Insurance Company and Avalanche Wrecking Corp. initiated a declaratory judgment action against the New York State Insurance Fund, seeking reimbursement for defense costs and damages. This stemmed from Avalanche employees' injuries, leading to lawsuits against Republic National Bank of New York (an additional insured under National Union's policy) and third-party claims against Avalanche. National Union, having defended both Republic and Avalanche, sought to recover from State Fund, Avalanche's workers' compensation carrier. The IAS Court initially denied State Fund's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to State Fund. The reversal was based on the anti-subrogation rule, which precludes an insurer from pursuing a subrogated claim against its own insured, citing a potential conflict of interest from representing multiple parties under the same risk.

Insurance DisputeSubrogationAnti-Subrogation RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityAdditional InsuredContractual ObligationIndemnification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madigan v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Plaintiff Arthur J. Madigan sustained injuries after falling from a reinforcing rod cage while working on a UPS delivery facility construction, leading him to file a Labor Law § 240 claim. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's work involved a significant elevation-related risk, thereby making Labor Law § 240 applicable. The court also dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the unwitnessed nature of the accident, the availability of safety devices, and instructions not to walk on the cages. Furthermore, it established that UPS, as the overseeing entity and parent company of Newbany, was liable under the statute. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the defendants' cross-motion.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafety DevicesElevation-Related RiskWorker InjuryNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockwood v. National Valve Manufacturing Co.

The court reversed an order denying the plaintiffs' application for partial summary judgment of liability based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The case involved a plaintiff who was injured while working on a steel beam approximately 100 feet above the ground when a 10-ton pipe fell from temporary supports. The plaintiff either fell or jumped to avoid the pipe, landing on a catwalk 25 feet below. The court emphasized that Labor Law § 240 (1) is designed to protect workers from falls or falling objects at elevated work sites and imposes strict liability on owners or contractors, regardless of their control over the work. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor LawElevated Work SiteFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentStatutory ViolationWorker InjuryConstruction AccidentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. Docket No. 2017-07-0073; State File No. 81955-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2018

Kizer, Jared v. Express Services, Inc.

Employee Jared Kizer suffered an amputation injury to his right hand while operating a machine for Express Services, Inc., a participant in Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Program. Following a positive post-accident drug test for THC, the employer denied the claim. The trial court initially concluded the employee rebutted the presumption that his drug use was the proximate cause of the injury by clear and convincing evidence. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed this decision, finding the employee failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his drug use was not the proximate cause, despite issues with machine guarding and employee training also being noted. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDrug-Free Workplace ProgramProximate CauseAmputation InjuryMachine SafetyTHC Positive TestToxicology ReportMedical Expert TestimonyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ReportStatutory Presumption
References
16
Case No. 14-08-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2010

Inliner Americas, Inc. N/K/A Firstliner Americas, Inc. Inliner USA, Inc. N/K/A/ Firstliner USA, Inc. And CAT Contracting, Inc. v. MaComb Funding Group L.L.C.

After appellants defaulted on a secured loan and their creditor initiated foreclosure, the appellants assigned collateral to the creditor. The agreement defined collateral to include assignable causes of action and their proceeds. The central issue was whether unrelated legal-malpractice claims or their settlement funds were transferred as a result of this pledge and assignment. The court concluded that malpractice claims were not assignable and thus not collateral, meaning the settlement funds were not proceeds of such collateral. Consequently, the court reversed and rendered declaratory judgment in the appellants' favor.

Legal MalpracticeAssignment of ClaimsCommercial LawSecurity AgreementCollateralTexas LawPublic PolicySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDebt
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longstreet v. Peltz

The plaintiff, a nanny, allegedly sustained injuries from a dog bite by the defendant's dog. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the dog lacked vicious propensities, but the Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found that the defendant had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryDog BiteSummary JudgmentVicious PropensitiesAppellate ReviewNannyPrima Facie ShowingTriable Issue of FactReversedMotion Granted
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Jenny Engineering Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Shea-Kiewit Construction Company, was injured by falling rock in a sewer tunnel being constructed for the Rochester Pure Waters District. He brought actions against Jenny Engineering Corporation, Lozier Architects and Engineers, and Everett G. and Marion Lucille Wambach. Initial motions for summary judgment were granted to the plaintiff against Lozier and to defendants Jenny and Wambach, dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to Jenny and Lozier, as they lacked supervisory control over the worker or construction. Furthermore, the Wambachs, as fee owners of land with a condemned tunnel easement, were not deemed 'owners' under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241 for liability purposes. Consequently, the appellant's motion was granted, and the complaint against Lozier should also have been dismissed.

Workplace InjurySewer Tunnel ConstructionFalling ObjectLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgent of Owner
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,106 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