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

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co.

This case addresses whether a party entitled to indemnification for damages to an injured employee can recover indemnity under the Public Utilities Act from an employer covered by the Workers’ Compensation statute. Tommy Eugene Miller, an employee of Eller Outdoor Advertising, was electrocuted by a power line owned by Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P). Miller's family received workers' compensation benefits from Eller and later settled a wrongful death action against HL&P. HL&P then sued Eller for indemnification, arguing Eller violated the Public Utilities Act. The trial court ruled that the Workers' Compensation Statute precluded HL&P's suit. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the specific indemnification provision of the later-enacted Public Utilities Act should control over the more general Workers' Compensation Act, allowing for harmonization of the statutes. The case was remanded to determine the merits of HL&P's indemnification claim.

IndemnificationPublic Utilities ActWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationHigh Voltage LinesElectrocutionWrongful DeathExclusive RemedyThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esser v. Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp.

Plaintiff Peter Esser sued Rainbow Advertising Sales Corp. (RASCO) for FMLA interference and retaliation. Esser took medical leave for carpal tunnel surgery, during which he attended an Elton John concert and allegedly misused his employee ID to access restricted areas. RASCO terminated Esser, citing breach of security and lack of candor during questioning. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the interference claim, finding Esser was granted FMLA leave, but denied it on the retaliation claim. The court determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether RASCO exhibited animus towards Esser for taking FMLA leave and whether it deviated from its termination policy.

FMLAFamily Medical Leave ActRetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployee MisconductTerminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkplace PolicyDue Process
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 1990

Claim of Harris v. Grey Advertising, Inc.

Claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits following an injury during her employment with Grey Advertising, Inc. The employer appealed earlier Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decisions, seeking further record development on the claimant's disability. After the claimant settled a third-party negligence action for $150,000, the employer sought a credit for this settlement against future compensation payments, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 29. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ decisions, indicating that further development was needed regarding the third-party settlement. The employer then appealed to this court, which dismissed the appeal as premature, ruling that the determination of the credit amount was a question of fact not yet resolved by the Board, thus rendering the Board's decision interlocutory and non-appealable.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsThird-Party Settlement CreditInterlocutory AppealPremature AppealRecord DevelopmentDisability AssessmentCompensation AwardEmployer AppealAppellate JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Law § 29
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavin v. McKelvey

The plaintiffs, Chalam Advertising, Inc., Nathan A. Chavin, and Lanny Lambert, sued defendants TMP Worldwide, Inc. and Andrew J. McKelvey over claims arising from the relinquishment of stock conversion rights. Plaintiffs alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act, breach of contract, common law fraud, and breach of duty, arguing they were fraudulently induced to give up conversion rights for promised compensation that was never delivered. The court dismissed the federal securities fraud claims, finding plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on oral representations given the clear disclaimer and merger clause in the Letter Agreement. Consequently, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the entire case.

Securities FraudStock Conversion RightsBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudBreach of DutyMotion to DismissJustifiable RelianceMerger ClauseFraud on the MarketSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CENTOCOR, INC. v. Hamilton

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton sued Centocor, Inc. after Patricia developed a lupus-like syndrome allegedly caused by Remicade, a drug manufactured by Centocor. Hamilton claimed Centocor engaged in fraudulent direct-to-consumer advertising that misleadingly emphasized benefits and omitted warnings. A jury found in favor of Hamilton, awarding significant actual and punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of fraud, recognizing an exception to the "learned intermediary" doctrine when manufacturers directly advertise fraudulently. However, the court reversed the award for future pain and mental anguish damages due to insufficient evidence. The judgment was modified to reflect this change.

Product LiabilityFraudDirect-to-Consumer AdvertisingLearned Intermediary DoctrineDrug-Induced LupusRemicadeMedical MalpracticePunitive DamagesCausationWarning Defect
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Ultreo, Inc.

The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) sued Ultreo, Inc. for false advertising under the Lanham Act and the New York Consumer Protection Act, specifically challenging Ultreo's claims about its toothbrush technology. P&G sought the disclosure of five scientific studies conducted by Ultreo, arguing they were discoverable business documents. Ultreo resisted, claiming the studies were protected by attorney work product privilege. The court rejected Ultreo's argument, finding that the studies were a core part of Ultreo’s business plan to substantiate its advertising claims and would have been prepared regardless of anticipated litigation. Therefore, the court ordered Ultreo to produce the studies to P&G.

False advertisingLanham ActNew York Consumer Protection ActDiscovery disputeAttorney work productPrivilegeScientific studiesClinical researchLitigation anticipationBusiness plan
References
7
Case No. 100394/2013
Regular Panel Decision

CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York

The case involves three outdoor advertising companies and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority challenging the City of New York's authority to regulate signs on railroad rights-of-way, arguing state law preemption. The court ruled that MTA facilities used for transportation purposes, even if generating revenue from advertising, are exempt from city zoning laws. For signs on CSX Transportation Inc. property, the court found city zoning regulations applicable but remanded the issue of 'nonconforming use' status to the Department of Buildings. Federal preemption claims by CSXT were dismissed, and the regulatory taking claim was deemed not ripe for review. The petition was granted in part, denied in part, and remanded in part.

Regulatory PreemptionOutdoor AdvertisingZoning LawsRailroad Rights-of-WayPublic Authorities LawCity RegulationsLand UseConstitutional LawTakings ClauseAdministrative Law
References
36
Case No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Stratus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The lawsuit involves Healthpoint Ltd. and Stratus Corporation concerning competing enzymatic wound ointments, Aceuzyme/Panafil (Healthpoint) and Kovia/Ziox (Stratus). Healthpoint alleged false advertising, unfair competition, dilution, and palming off by Stratus, claiming Stratus misrepresented its products as 'generic' or 'bioequivalent' to Healthpoint's. Stratus counterclaimed with similar allegations of false advertising against Healthpoint. The court addressed the primary jurisdiction of the FDA regarding drug classification and labeling, deferring misbranding claims to the FDA. Ultimately, the court granted Healthpoint's motion for a preliminary injunction in part, enjoining Stratus from making specific false or misleading claims about its products' equivalence, and denied Stratus' cross-motion.

False AdvertisingUnfair CompetitionLanham ActPreliminary InjunctionDrug MarketingBioequivalenceGeneric DrugsFDA RegulationWound CarePharmaceutical Law
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. City of Round Rock

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed a district court judgment that affirmed the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The central issue was whether these structures qualified as 'signs' under Round Rock's ordinance and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use status. The court determined the ordinance became effective on February 27, 1997. Interpreting 'sign' to include any surface intended for advertisement, the court held that four structures were indeed signs, reversing and remanding the district court's decision regarding them. However, the remaining three structures, lacking appropriate backing, were not deemed signs, and that portion of the district court's judgment was affirmed. The appellants' 'takings' claim was overruled due to insufficient evidence.

Outdoor AdvertisingSign OrdinancesZoning RegulationsExtraterritorial JurisdictionNon-conforming UsePermit DenialAbuse of DiscretionRegulatory TakingsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Appeal
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 91 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