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. 13-13-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Earthworks Unlimited, Inc.

This workers' compensation case addresses whether Steve D. Barnett's claim for carpal tunnel syndrome benefits against Earthworks Unlimited, Inc. is time-barred by the statute of limitations. Barnett was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in April 2002 and verbally notified his employer, but did not fully understand its work-related and permanent nature until May 2003. His employment was terminated in January 2003 for unrelated reasons, and he filed his claim in June 2003. The trial court found the claim timely, and the Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying that for gradually occurring injuries, the one-year statute of limitations begins on the last day the employee worked, unless explicit notice of a compensable, work-related injury was given with full knowledge. As Barnett lacked full knowledge of his injury's nature until after his last day of employment, the last-day-worked rule applied, making his claim timely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsGradual InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLast-Day-Worked RuleNotice RequirementPermanent Partial DisabilityRepetitive Motion InjuryTennessee LawMedical Impairment Rating
References
15
Case No. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. ADJ3107792 (AHM 0148954)
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

EDGAR QUIJADA vs. ORE-CAL CORPORATION, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) as untimely. The original order was issued on October 18, 2011, but the petition was not filed until November 22, 2011, 35 days later. California law strictly enforces a 25-day deadline for filing such petitions, with this time limit being jurisdictional. The WCAB also noted that even if they had wanted to grant reconsideration on their own motion, the 60-day window had expired before the petition reached their attention. Therefore, the WCAB had no choice but to dismiss the petition due to its tardiness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitsLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationService by MailLabor Code
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.

Plaintiffs Marcel Alleyne and Earl Legrande filed a class action lawsuit against Time Moving & Storage, Inc. and The Time Record Storage Company, LLC, alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants invoked the motor carrier exemption as a defense. The parties reached a class settlement agreement for the state law claims, which was provisionally certified. Following objections from some class members regarding the fairness of the settlement, class certification, and attorney's fees, the Court, presided over by Judge Vitaliano, granted final class certification and approved the settlement. The Court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the risks of litigation, denied the objectors' motion to intervene, and approved attorney's fees of $60,000.

Class ActionOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier ExemptionWage and Hour ClaimsClass SettlementSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesRule 23 Certification
References
41
Case No. 2020-03-0939
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2021

Day, Misti v. Great Salons of Knoxville, Inc.

Misti G. Day sustained two work-related injuries in 2018 and 2019. Her initial petition for benefits was involuntarily dismissed without prejudice in December 2019 due to failure to prosecute. The employer subsequently ceased voluntary workers' compensation benefits in March 2020. Employee Day filed a second petition for benefits on April 30, 2020, seeking additional medical treatment for her injuries. The trial court determined that the employee's second petition was timely filed and that she was likely to prevail regarding her request for additional medical benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing the second petition was untimely. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s determinations and remanded the case.

Timeliness of PetitionInvoluntary DismissalStatute of LimitationsMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInterlocutory AppealRemandRule 41.02Show Cause HearingWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
3
Case No. 13-06-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments. Appellants (Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C., collectively "Texas Treasure") contested the trial court's decision in favor of appellee (Christus Spohn Health System d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, "Christus"). The dispute arose from medical expenses incurred by a seaman, Judy Ann Lanado, employed by Texas Treasure, who suffered severe brain damage after surgery at Christus. Texas Treasure sought to avoid liability for the entire hospital bill and claimed equitable subrogation. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Texas Treasure's motion for summary judgment on its plea in intervention but reversed the granting of Christus's motions for summary judgment on its counterclaim and Texas Treasure's plea in intervention, remanding for further proceedings to determine negligence and attributable expenses.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSworn AccountVerified DenialDue ProcessEquitable SubrogationMaintenance and CureMaritime LawAlien CrewmanHospital Expenses
References
52
Case No. 08-03-00414-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

Trinity Universal Insurance Company v. Rebecca L. Day and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Trinity Universal Insurance Company appealed a judgment in favor of Rebecca L. Day regarding her claim for supplemental income benefits. The central issue was whether Trinity had timely filed its Request for Review with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) Appeals Panel, which was crucial for the trial court's jurisdiction. The TWCC and the trial court found Trinity's appeal to be untimely. The Court of Appeals examined the interpretation of 28 Tex.Admin.Code § 102.5(d) concerning the deemed date of receipt for communications from the TWCC. The court ultimately concluded that Trinity's appeal was timely filed under the deemed receipt rule, thereby reversing the trial court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsInsurance LawDeemed Receipt RulePlea to the Jurisdiction
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,949 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