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. ADJ2033145 (LAO 0877321) ADJ1126357 (LAO 0877370)
Regular
Jun 06, 2012

PABLO RAMIREZ vs. BAU FURNITURE MANUFACTURING, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved applicant Pablo Ramirez and defendants Bau Furniture Manufacturing and Berkshire Hathaway. The Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The amended decision affirmed the original ruling but dismissed a remaining lien balance for Paramount Physicians Medical Group with prejudice. This modification specifically addressed a lien claim previously asserted.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPABLO RAMIREZBAU FURNITURE MANUFACTURINGBERKSHIRE HATHAWAYADJ2033145ADJ1126357OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunley v. Silver Furniture Mfg. Co.

William D. Hunley, an employee of Silver Furniture Manufacturing Co. (SFMC), suffered work-related injuries and, along with his wife, Mrs. Hunley, settled claims against a third-party tortfeasor, Velvac, Inc. Mr. Hunley received $200,000 for personal injuries, and Mrs. Hunley received $200,000 for loss of consortium. The Hunleys filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that Mrs. Hunley's settlement was not subject to SFMC's workers' compensation subrogation lien. The lower courts ruled in favor of SFMC, subjecting the spouse's recovery to the lien. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that an employer's subrogation right does not extend to a worker's spouse's recovery for loss of consortium. However, the Court also established that trial courts must review such settlements for fairness and reasonableness of allocation, with unreasonable portions subject to the employer's lien. The case was remanded to the trial court to apply this standard to the Hunleys' settlement.

Workers' Compensation SubrogationLoss of ConsortiumThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory LienFairness and Reasonableness StandardApportionment of DamagesDerivative ClaimsTennessee Law
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conkle v. Builders Concrete Products Manufacturing Co.

The parents of Douglas Conkle sued his employer, Builders Concrete Products Manufacturing Company, and the manufacturer of a concrete batch plant, Dillon Steel, for damages resulting from his death. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the Worker's Compensation Act, and for the manufacturer, based on a 10-year statute of limitations for improvements to real property. The court of appeals affirmed. This court affirmed the summary judgment for the employer but reversed the summary judgment for Dillon Steel, finding a factual issue regarding whether the machinery was an 'improvement to real property' under TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.009, or merely component parts, thus remanding the case for further proceedings concerning the manufacturer.

Texas LawSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActWrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsImprovement to Real PropertyComponent PartsEmployer LiabilityManufacturer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Clear Lake Yacht Basin, Inc.

Robert Young was seriously injured in an explosion and fire on a Chris-Craft yacht, "TOPAZ," on June 9, 1966. Young sued multiple defendants, including Clear Lake Yacht Basin, Inc. (repair company), Security Insurance Co. (insurer), Jack A. Young (brother, executive officer, possible owner), Young Furniture Manufacturing Co. (employer, possible owner), and Surveyor Jack Roberts. Plaintiff alleged negligence and breach of warranty, claiming a leaking gas tank. The Court found that Young failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' alleged derelictions caused the fire. It further concluded that plaintiff's own negligence, by activating electrical equipment after smelling strong gasoline fumes, was the proximate cause of the incident. Consequently, the Court denied all claims against the defendants, finding no liability based on warranty or negligence theories.

Yacht ExplosionMarine Surveyor NegligenceBreach of Warranty of SeaworthinessContributory NegligenceIndependent Contractor LiabilityInsurance Policy InterpretationAgency RelationshipEmployer-Employee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation SettlementMaritime Law
References
13
Case No. M1999-00021-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2000

Fahrner v. SW Manufacturing

This case involves an appeal by SW Manufacturing, Inc. against the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings in an employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge case brought by Andrew Fahrner. Fahrner argued that the discovery rule should extend to his claims, as he only became aware of the alleged retaliatory motive for his termination in March 1998, despite being discharged in November 1997. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, in Nashville, reviewed the case de novo and found no legal basis to extend the discovery rule to retaliatory discharge and discrimination claims. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations began when Fahrner received unequivocal notice of his termination in November 1997, and his complaint, filed in December 1998, was therefore untimely. The Court reversed the trial court's decision, granting SW Manufacturing's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleMotion for Judgment on PleadingsAppellate ReviewAccrual of Cause of ActionUnequivocal Notice of TerminationTennessee Court of AppealsTort Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1969

Hedges Manufacturing Co. v. Worley

Curtis A. Davis, with a pre-existing 70% disability, sustained a new injury in August 1967 while employed by Hedges Manufacturing Co. The trial court found Davis 30% permanently partially disabled from the 1967 injury and 100% permanently and totally disabled from the combined injuries, awarding benefits against Hedges/Aetna and the Second Injury Fund. The initial judgment was set aside and amended due to incorrect computation of liability and credits for temporary total disability payments. The amended judgment awarded Davis $5,040.00 from Hedges Manufacturing Co. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and $8,818.00 from the Second Injury Fund. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, overruling assignments of error regarding credit for temporary total disability payments and computation method.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurer LiabilityPre-existing Condition
References
6
Case No. 14-14-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2015

Katy Springs & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Joseph Favalora

Joseph Favalora, an employee of Katy Springs & Manufacturing, Inc., suffered injuries while working on a manufacturing line when an unsafe pay-off reel malfunctioned, causing a wire to strike him. A jury found Katy Springs liable for negligence and awarded Favalora compensatory damages, including past and future mental anguish. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting the $100,000 award for future mental anguish, finding insufficient evidence to support it. The court, however, upheld the jury's findings on negligence, causation, and awards for past medical expenses and physical impairment.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityUnsafe EquipmentCausationDamagesMedical ExpensesMental AnguishPhysical ImpairmentJury Verdict
References
94
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 794 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