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

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Case No. 05-17-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2018

Ana Arana, Individually, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Victor Arana, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries Edgar Arana, Paola Arana, and Alexander Arana v. K. Hovnanian Homes-DFW, L.L.C.

Victor Arana, a framer, tragically died after falling from a rafter at a construction site managed by K. Hovnanian Homes-DFW, L.L.C. His family filed a lawsuit asserting negligence and negligence per se claims, arguing that Hovnanian owed a duty of care based on control over the work, premises defects, and negligent activity. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hovnanian. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Aranas failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding Hovnanian's duty under theories of control or premises liability, and their argument for negligent activity was not adequately presented for review.

Construction Site SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises Owner DutyNegligence ClaimsWrongful Death LitigationSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Court of AppealsFall AccidentSubcontractor RelationshipOSHA Regulations
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stewart v. Town of Chili

In June 1983, a volunteer firefighter, authorized to attend an annual convention in Penn Yan, Yates County, sustained serious injuries when he lost control of his motorcycle. The accident occurred shortly after 2:00 a.m. while he was driving with a passenger to find breakfast in Geneva, Ontario County, having previously been drinking and socializing at a bar where he found the kitchen closed. He filed a claim for Workers’ Compensation benefits under the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Law, but the employer, the Town of Chili Fire Department, and the State Insurance Fund, controverted the claim, arguing the injury was not sustained in the line of duty, citing his intoxication and the personal nature of his activities. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined the claimant was within the scope of his duties and awarded benefits, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that travel for breakfast was a compensable activity directly connected to convention attendance, and rejected the intoxication defense because it was not proven to be the sole cause of the accident.

Volunteer FirefighterWorkers' CompensationLine of DutyIntoxication DefenseAccident InjuryConvention TravelScope of EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBenefit Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. United States

Plaintiff Gerardo Gonzalez sued the United States for negligence and unseaworthiness under the Suits in Admiralty Act after sustaining injuries on the vessel SBX-1. Gonzalez, a pipefitter, was injured during a sea trial when he slipped on hydraulic fluid. The court found that Gonzalez's claims were governed by the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act (LHWCA), not the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government, concluding that there was no violation of the vessel's turnover duty, active control duty, or duty to intervene under the LHWCA. The court also held that seaworthiness claims are explicitly barred by the LHWCA.

Maritime LawLHWCAJones ActSeaworthiness ClaimNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentVessel Owner DutyTurnover DutyActive Control DutyDuty to Intervene
References
67
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Case No. 17-0381
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2020

Mary Orozco v. County of El Paso, Self-Insured

Mary Orozco, the widow of a deputy sheriff, sought workers' compensation benefits after her husband died in a vehicular accident while driving his assigned patrol car home from an extra-duty assignment. The central issue was whether his death occurred within the course and scope of his employment with El Paso County. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of the widow. The Court determined that the authorized operation of a marked patrol car on public roads, even during off-duty travel from an approved extra-duty assignment, constituted a law-enforcement activity that originated in and furthered the employer's business, especially given the county's provision and control over the vehicle.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLaw Enforcement OfficerVehicular AccidentExtra-Duty EmploymentTake-Home Patrol CarComing-and-Going Rule ExceptionDual-Purpose RuleTexas Supreme CourtEl Paso County Sheriff's Department
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 6,499 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