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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Stecher Aviation Services, Inc. (Commr. of Labor)

Stecher Aviation Services, Inc., a company providing aircraft flight crews, was assessed for unemployment insurance contributions for its flight crews by the Department of Labor. Stecher Aviation argued that its flight crews were independent contractors, but an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found an employer-employee relationship existed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship, including Stecher Aviation's control over crew selection, billing, payment rates, and provision of workers' compensation insurance. The court also rejected Stecher Aviation's claim of an unfair hearing due to the tax auditor's absence, as the supervisor, familiar with the investigation, was available to testify.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardFlight CrewWorkers' Compensation InsuranceFair Hearing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. 12-1227-cec
Regular Panel Decision

Schroeder v. Global Aviation Holdings, Inc. (In re Global Aviation Holdings, Inc.)

This case addresses a motion for summary judgment filed by Global Aviation Holdings, Inc. and World Airways, Inc. (Defendants) against former airline pilots (Plaintiffs). The Plaintiffs alleged a violation of the WARN Act due to a "mass layoff" without required 60-day notice, claiming the Kansas City, Missouri airport (KMCI) served as their "single site of employment." Defendants countered that KMCI was only a theoretical base for payment calculations and lacked any physical presence or operational connection to their pilots. The Court, citing precedent requiring physical connection for a "home base" under WARN Act regulations, ruled that KMCI did not qualify as a "single site of employment." Therefore, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the adversary proceedings.

WARN ActMass LayoffSingle Site of EmploymentSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureAirline PilotsFurloughBankruptcyCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 13-21-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Accident Fund General Insurance Company v. Rodrigo Mendiola

Rodrigo Mendiola, a truck driver, suffered severe burns in an accident, leading to an above-the-knee amputation and significant injury to his left hand. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, disputed his claim for lifetime income benefits based on the total loss of use of his left hand. The trial court, applying the Travelers Insurance Co. v. Seabolt standard, found sufficient evidence that Mendiola's hand lacked substantial utility, entitling him to benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the application of the Seabolt standard and concluding the evidence factually supported the finding of total loss of use.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseBurn InjuriesHand InjuryAmputationMedical EvidenceFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewStare Decisis
References
29
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05690
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2023

Medina v. Jet Aviation Holdings USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul Medina, a delivery person, suffered a head injury while loading humanitarian cargo onto an airplane in a New Jersey hangar. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against various entities including Jet Aviation Holdings USA, Inc., and Third Point LLC, alleging negligence in hangar operation and his direction. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed appeals concerning two Supreme Court orders regarding motions to dismiss. The court unanimously reversed the denial of dismissal for the Jet Aviation defendants, granting their motion due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiary and its parent companies. The court also unanimously modified the denial of dismissal for Daniel S. Loeb, Third Point LLC, and Teragram, LLC, granting dismissal against Loeb and Teragram for insufficient pleading and lack of duty, respectively, but affirmed the denial against Third Point LLC regarding potential vicarious liability.

Personal InjuryJurisdictionVicarious LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineCorporate VeilMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewNegligenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate Officer Liability
References
9
Case No. W2008-01771-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2011

Shelby County Health Care Corporation, d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. John Baumgartner, Elizabeth Baumgartner, a/k/a Daray Baumgartner, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity

This appeal concerns the impairment of a hospital lien by Shelby County Health Care Corporation (The MED) against John Baumgartner and his insurance providers, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity. Mr. Baumgartner received extensive medical treatment at The MED following an automobile accident, incurring over $500,000 in expenses, for which The MED filed a hospital lien. Subsequently, Nationwide and Hartford settled with the Baumgartners, paying out policy limits of $25,000 and $100,000 respectively, without remitting any funds to The MED. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, finding impairment of the lien and awarding damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of lien impairment but reversed the damage awards, concluding that The MED's recovery is limited to one-third of the amounts the insurers paid to the Baumgartners, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Hospital Lien ActInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentSubrogationMade-Whole DoctrineStatutory InterpretationDamages for ImpairmentConstructive NoticeMedical ExpensesSettlement Agreements
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Eurocopter S.A.

Plaintiffs, the surviving widow and daughter of helicopter pilot Nathan Brown, filed suit after Brown was killed in a crash into an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Initially, the Court ruled that the Death On The High Sea Act (DOHSA) applied, limiting recovery to pecuniary losses. Plaintiffs then moved for the Court to apply DOHSA as amended by the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). AIR 21 introduced provisions allowing nonpecuniary damages for deaths in commercial aviation accidents occurring beyond 12 nautical miles from shore after July 16, 1996. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion, determining that Brown’s helicopter flight, an on-demand air taxi service for profit, constituted a "commercial aviation accident" under the plain language of the amended DOHSA statute and consistent with Federal Aviation Regulations. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover nonpecuniary damages for loss of care, comfort, and companionship.

DOHSA AmendmentsCommercial Aviation AccidentNonpecuniary DamagesWrongful DeathOCSLAFederal Aviation RegulationsStatutory InterpretationHelicopter CrashMaritime LawGulf of Mexico
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05697
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2021

Hensel v. Aviator FSC, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Hensel, sustained personal injuries when a heavy soccer board slid off a forklift and struck him while he was loading boards onto a truck. He initiated an action against Aviator FSC, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under that section. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, concluding that the disassembly and removal of the soccer boards constituted 'demolition' and 'altering' within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court further found that the plaintiff's injury resulted from an elevation-related hazard, exacerbated by the defendant's failure to provide adequate safety devices on the modified forklift.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryElevation-related HazardDemolition WorkForklift AccidentAppellate ReviewSafety DevicesStatutory InterpretationAbsolute Liability
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 3,745 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