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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
Case No. 03-04-00632-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2006

State of Texas v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.

The State of Texas, representing TxDOT, sued Precision Solar Controls, Inc., for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective traffic signals. Precision Solar filed a counterclaim for business disparagement, asserting the State waived sovereign immunity by initiating the suit. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, holding that by filing suit, the State waives its sovereign immunity against germane counterclaims, even if they are intentional torts, as the core facts concerning the signals' quality and warranty performance are common to both claims.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityCounterclaimsBusiness DisparagementBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance v. Great American E&S Insurance

Plaintiff Ethical Culture Fieldston School (ECF) and Tishman, the project manager, were named additional insureds on Solar's general liability policy with Great American. Solar employee, Lisa Best, was injured on site. While Solar filed workers' compensation, notice to Great American about Best's personal injury lawsuit against Tishman and ECF, and Solar's subsequent impleading, was delayed. Tishman and ECF sought a declaratory judgment that Great American was obligated to defend and indemnify them, and Solar cross-claimed. Great American moved for summary judgment, asserting untimely notice. The court found Solar's delay of over a year in notifying Great American was untimely and that Solar's belief of nonliability was unreasonable, especially given its contractual indemnification obligations. Consequently, Great American was not obligated to provide coverage to Solar in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeTimely Notice RequirementCondition PrecedentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured StatusConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Case No. 02-25-00220-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2025

1 Solar Solution, LLC and Mohammad Ali Samana v. S&A Wholesale Inc., D.B.A. Trendy Energy Solutions and Trendy Communications

Appellee S&A Wholesale Inc., d/b/a Trendy Energy Solutions and Trendy Communications (Trendy), obtained a default judgment against Appellants 1 Solar Solution, LLC and Mohammad Ali Samana. Appellants argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the default judgment, claiming they satisfied the Craddock factors. The trial court denied their motion. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the new-trial motion for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the appellants' explanation for failing to answer did not negate conscious indifference.

Default JudgmentCraddock FactorsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionConscious IndifferenceAccident or MistakeAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureFailure to AppearLegal Representation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.

The State of Texas, through the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), initiated a lawsuit against Precision Solar Controls, Inc., alleging breach of contract and warranty due to defective traffic signals. Precision Solar denied these claims and filed a counterclaim for business disparagement, asserting that TxDOT wrongfully publicized its products as faulty. The State attempted to dismiss the counterclaim by filing a plea to the jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity. However, the trial court denied this plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that by voluntarily filing the initial lawsuit, the State waived its sovereign immunity with respect to counterclaims germane to its original suit, and found Precision Solar's business disparagement claim sufficiently related to the case.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionBusiness DisparagementBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2011

Tptcc Ny, Inc. v. Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs TPTCC NY, Inc., The Proton Institute of New York, LLC, and N.Y. Medscan LLC sued defendants Norton Travis, Radiation Therapy Services Inc. (RTSI), Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Cicero Consulting Associates VCC, Inc., New York Proton Management LLC (NYPC), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., and 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Plaintiffs alleged federal antitrust, federal copyright, and various New York state law claims, contending a conspiracy to exclude them from the New York City market for Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) services and misappropriation of their business plan. The court dismissed the antitrust claims, applying the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and finding a lack of antitrust injury. Copyright claims were dismissed because the business plan lacked creativity for copyright protection and was jointly authored. State law claims, including breach of joint venture, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, were also dismissed due to various legal deficiencies, such as the absence of a joint venture, the public disclosure of alleged trade secrets, and the lack of a fiduciary relationship. The court reaffirmed its order granting defendants' motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice, directing entry of final judgment for the defendants.

Antitrust LawCopyright LawTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractJoint VentureNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSherman ActNew York Common Law
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lew v. Radiation Dynamics, Inc.

Samuel Lew sued his former employer, Radiation Dynamics, Inc. (RDI), alleging national origin discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Lew, a naturalized American citizen of French origin, claimed he was discriminated against due to his French accent and subsequently terminated after complaining about a discriminatory remark by his supervisor. RDI moved for summary judgment, asserting Lew failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the discrimination claim and that his termination stemmed from poor performance. The Court granted summary judgment for RDI on the national origin discrimination claim, finding Lew's allegations primarily focused on retaliation rather than direct discrimination. However, the Court denied RDI's motion for summary judgment on the retaliation claim and its motion to limit damages, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of Lew's termination, including disputed examination scores and performance evaluations. The case will proceed to trial on the retaliation claim.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964National Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingEEOC ExhaustionTemporal Proximity
References
39
Case No. ADJ6722603
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

TONY PEAK vs. REC SOLAR, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY c/o AARLA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Tony Peak v. REC Solar and Praetorian Insurance Company. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasons provided in the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report. This order formally denies the reconsideration of the prior decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration deniedWCJ reportAdministrative law judgeADJ6722603ADJ6722349REC SolarPraetorian Insurance CompanyAARLATony Peak
References
0
Case No. ADJ14099837; ADJ18327322
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

ROBERT SCHLIESMANN vs. SOLAR OPTIMUM DESIGN AND ELECTRICAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Robert Schliesmann, sustained an injury to his lumbar spine, lower extremities, left leg, and bilateral feet while employed as a solar tech. The case was initially dismissed due to the applicant's perceived inaction. However, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated the dismissal, finding that the defendant failed to comply with the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) requests for diagnostic testing and documents, thereby impeding the QME process. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for substantial justice and the defendant's duty to conduct a reasonable and timely investigation of claims.

PQMEAdjudication NumbersFindings and OrdersPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5803Good CauseOrder of DismissalPetition to ReopenRescind
References
5
Case No. ADJ17298965
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

SETH FRANKLIN vs. CITY OF REDLANDS, ADMINSURE

Applicant Seth Franklin, a police officer, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied his claim for industrial injury in the form of melanoma. The WCJ initially found applicant was not entitled to the cancer presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, concluding that the WCJ erred. The Board determined that applicant, as a police officer, was exposed to solar radiation (a known carcinogen) and his melanoma developed or manifested during his employment, thus entitling him to the cancer presumption. The case has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if the presumption can be rebutted.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionpolice officermelanomaindustrial injurycarcinogensolar ultraviolet radiationlatency periodrebuttal of presumptioncumulative trauma
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 55 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