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

Isufi v. Prometal Construction, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a class of workers, sued Pro-Metal Construction, Inc. and STV Construction, Inc. in state court for unpaid prevailing wages, benefits, and overtime related to a federally-funded project, asserting state common and statutory law claims. Defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing federal question jurisdiction due to the applicability of the federal Davis-Bacon Act and its preemption of state law claims. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court examined the doctrines of federal question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule, and the artful pleading doctrine, clarifying that preemption generally serves as a defense and not a basis for removal unless it constitutes 'complete preemption,' which the Davis-Bacon Act does not provide. The court determined that the plaintiffs' complaint did not raise a substantial federal issue and was not artfully pleaded to avoid federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was granted.

Wage DisputePrevailing WagesOvertimeFederal JurisdictionRemoval and RemandDavis-Bacon ActFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsContract LawArtful Pleading
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. 1:94-CV 0484
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 1995

KVHP TV PARTNERS, LTD. v. Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc.

Plaintiffs, KVHP TV Partners, Ltd. d/b/a Fox 29 and Calcasieu Communications, Inc., filed a motion to remand their case to state court after defendants, Channel 12 of Beaumont, Inc., Texas Television Inc., Viacom International, Inc., and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc., removed it to federal court. The plaintiffs had originally sued in state court alleging tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and violations of Texas antitrust and deceptive trade practices acts. Defendants asserted federal question jurisdiction as the basis for removal. The court analyzed the well-pleaded complaint rule, the artful pleading doctrine, and the complete preemption doctrine. Finding no federal question on the face of the complaint and no applicable exceptions, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the 58th Judicial District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, and ordered Viacom International, Inc. and Multimedia Entertainment, Inc. to reimburse the plaintiffs for costs and attorneys' fees incurred due to the removal.

Federal JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionRemand to State CourtWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful Pleading DoctrineComplete Preemption DoctrineFederal Antitrust LawCommunications Act of 1934Tortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. 2018-06-1969
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2019

Kent, Robert v. Delatorre Art Design, Inc.

The claimant, Robert Kent, an artisan, sustained a left shoulder injury while working at the Nashville Zoo. He sought workers' compensation benefits from Delatorre Art Design, Inc., which hired him, alleging he was an employee. Delatorre contended Kent was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to benefits. The trial court sided with Delatorre, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Board after considering statutory factors for determining employment status. The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding that Kent was unlikely to establish an employer-employee relationship at trial, and thus affirmed the denial of benefits.

Independent contractoremployer-employee relationshipworkers' compensation benefitsartisan injuryoccupational injurytemporary workstatutory factorsright to controlmethod of paymentNashville Zoo
References
5
Case No. 650775/2013, 158002/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2013

Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

This opinion addresses two consolidated actions challenging the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s "pay what you wish" admissions policy. Plaintiffs alleged violations of General Business Law § 349, a 1893 statute, and breach of a 1878 lease with the City of New York, asserting a right to free admission. Justice Kornreich granted the Museum’s motion to dismiss. The court found no private right of action under the 1893 appropriations act and determined that plaintiffs, as purported third-party beneficiaries of the lease, had no greater rights than the City, which had tacitly and explicitly approved the admission policy for over 40 years. The decision underscored that compelling a de minimis payment constituted de facto free access and that plaintiffs' lawsuit would ultimately undermine the Museum’s ability to fund its public access and operations.

Museum Admission PolicyPay What You WishGeneral Business Law § 349Lease AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryPrivate Right of ActionAppropriations StatuteInjunctive ReliefMotion to DismissMetropolitan Museum of Art
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenberg Development Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc.

Imperial Performing Arts, Inc. (IPA) sued Rosenberg Development Corporation (RDC) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. RDC filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming governmental immunity from suit. The trial court partially granted and partially denied RDC's plea. On interlocutory appeal, RDC challenged the denial of its plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's partial denial, holding that economic development corporations like RDC generally do not possess common law governmental immunity from suit for contract claims. The court further clarified that the statutory immunity granted to Type B corporations under Local Government Code § 505.106 is limited to tort claims and immunity from liability for damages, neither of which supported RDC's plea for immunity from suit in this contract dispute.

Governmental ImmunityEconomic Development CorporationPlea to JurisdictionBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsPolitical SubdivisionsCommon Law ImmunityStatutory Immunity
References
34
Case No. 07-17-00138-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2018

Anthony D. Colby v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company A/K/A Utica National Insurance Company

Anthony D. Colby appealed a trial court's dismissal of his workers' compensation claims against Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company (Utica). Colby, who sustained an on-the-job injury in 2009, had previously exhausted some administrative remedies related to the appointment of a designated doctor. The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) Appeals Panel upheld a decision that Dr. Lisa Persyn was not properly appointed as a designated doctor. However, Colby's subsequent district court claims for denial of medical treatment, improper claims handling, and civil rights violations did not directly challenge the DWC's specific decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of Utica's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, concluding that Colby failed to exhaust the necessary administrative remedies for the particular claims he asserted in the district court, as these matters fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DWC.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewMedical BenefitsClaims HandlingDesignated DoctorExhaustion DoctrineTrial Court Dismissal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonard v. Transoceanic Sedco Forex

Plaintiff Timothy Leonard (a galley hand employed by ART Catering, Inc.) filed a maritime lawsuit against multiple defendants, including Transoceanic Sedeo Forex, R & B Falcon Drilling U.S.A., Inc., Hyundai Heavy Industries, Co., and ART Catering, Inc. Leonard claimed injury under the Jones Act, or alternatively, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act and Texas state law. He was injured on May 22, 2000, while working aboard the DEEPWATER NAUTILUS, which was docked in Galveston. Defendant ART Catering, Inc. moved for partial summary judgment on Leonard's Jones Act claims, arguing he was not a Jones Act seaman because the vessel was not 'in navigation' at the time of his injury, as it had not yet begun its intended purpose of drilling. The Court granted ART's motion, finding that the Nautilus was not 'in navigation' as a matter of law at the time of Leonard's injury, thus precluding his seaman status under the Jones Act. Leonard's remaining claims are still pending.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel In NavigationSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryDrilling RigOilfield ServicesGalley HandFifth Circuit Precedent
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York v. Justin

The State of New York initiated an action against twenty-five defendants, including Financial Network Investment Corporation (FNIC), alleging violations of New York law through an investment scheme that defrauded over six hundred residents of $18.5 million. The complaint specifically targeted FNIC for allegedly failing to adequately supervise its securities salespeople, constituting fraud under various state statutes. FNIC removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss, while the State of New York moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court granted the State's motion for remand, concluding that the state law claims did not pose a substantial federal question, nor did they fall under the complete preemption or artful pleading doctrines. Consequently, FNIC's motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

Securities FraudInvestment SchemeMotion for RemandMotion to DismissFederal Question JurisdictionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleComplete Preemption DoctrineArtful PleadingState Securities LawNew York Martin Act
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 2,252 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