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

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. 07-07-0288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2009

Otis Noble v. State

In this workers' compensation case, the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the dismissal of its suit for judicial review of an appeals panel decision. The dispute centered on who was liable for death benefits to the beneficiaries of officer Jose Herrera, SORM or the City of Friona, a self-insured entity. SORM failed to timely sue the City of Friona, instead naming the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TML Risk Pool). The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the City an indispensable party not timely joined. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, distinguishing SORM's misidentification argument from precedent. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to certain Herrera beneficiaries, determining SORM's claims against them were without foundation.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyLimitations PeriodMisidentificationAttorney's FeesFrivolous ClaimsDeath BenefitsInsurance Carrier Liability
References
20
Case No. 03-09-00666-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2011

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Chantal McVey as Beneficiary of Troy McVey

After her husband Troy McVey was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving to Houston for a job-related training conference, Chantal McVey, as Troy's beneficiary, sought workers' compensation survivor benefits from Troy's employer's insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company. Zurich denied coverage, asserting that Troy's death was not compensable because he had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Division of Workers' Compensation found Troy's death compensable, a decision Zurich sought judicial review of in district court. The district court granted McVey's motion for summary judgment and denied Zurich's. On appeal, Zurich asserts the district court erred in its legal determination that Troy had been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his accident, but the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleEmployer-Provided TransportationSpecial MissionCompensable InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMotor Vehicle AccidentTravel Expense
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 07-23-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Sherri Evans, Beneficiary of Michael S. Evans

Michael S. Evans, an Xcel Energy safety consultant, tragically died in a motorcycle accident while returning home to retrieve his company laptop. His beneficiary, Sherri Evans, filed a claim for death and burial benefits under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act against Old Republic Insurance Company (ORIC). The administrative law judge initially denied benefits, but the DWC Appeals Panel reversed this, finding the injury compensable. A jury trial affirmed this, leading the trial court to award benefits. ORIC appealed, arguing Michael was not in the course and scope of his employment. The Court of Appeals agreed with ORIC, reversing the trial court's judgment and rendering that the injury was not compensable, applying the 'coming and going' rule and rejecting the 'special mission' exception.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionFatal AccidentMotorcycle PolicyAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceEmployer Policy Violation
References
7
Case No. 06-02-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Betty Manasco, as Workers' Compensation Beneficiary of the Estate of Jack Manasco v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Betty Manasco, as the workers' compensation beneficiary of Jack Manasco's estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The case concerned whether a head injury sustained by Jack Manasco in the course of his employment caused his subsequent malignant brain tumor, which led to his death. Manasco contested the trial court's decision to exclude the testimony of her expert witness, Dr. Richard Hamer, a neurologist, and the subsequent granting of summary judgment. The appellate court reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the reliability of scientific evidence and the Zülch/Manuelidis criteria for causation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the medical literature did not establish a causal link through epidemiological or other studies, thereby deeming the exclusion of Dr. Hamer's testimony within the zone of reasonableness.

Workers' CompensationCausationExpert WitnessSummary JudgmentBrain TumorHead InjuryMedical EvidenceEpidemiologyReliability of EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. 04-14-00685-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2015

American Casualty Co. of Reading, Penn. v. Denise Bushman as Beneficiary of Clayton F. Bushman, Jr.

This is an unopposed motion filed by Appellee Denise Bushman, as beneficiary of Clayton F. Bushman, Jr., Deceased, requesting a 30-day extension to file her Appellee's Brief. The current deadline is January 14, 2015, and the requested extended deadline is February 13, 2015. The motion cites counsel's heavy workload, involvement in other judicial and administrative proceedings, family commitments, and the need for adequate time to review the record and law. Appellant's counsel is unopposed to the motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion to ExtendBrief FilingTexasWorkers' CompensationUnopposed MotionDeadline ExtensionLegal PleadingGuadalupe CountyFourth Court of Appeals
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. 03-10-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

State Office of Risk Management v. Erika M. Cole, as Sole Beneficiary of the Estate of Carolyn P. Cole

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted to Erika M. Cole, beneficiary of Carolyn P. Cole's estate. SORM challenged determinations by the Department of Insurance--Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) regarding Carolyn's impairment rating, maximum medical improvement date, and disability status. Erika argued SORM lacked evidence to contradict DWC's findings, which relied on a 'designated doctor's' report. The appellate court found SORM presented sufficient medical evidence, including reports from Dr. Gordon and Dr. Cochran, to create a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment and attorney's fees award were reversed and the case remanded.

Impairment Rating DisputeMaximum Medical Improvement DateSupplemental Income Benefits EligibilityMedical Opinion ConflictDesignated Doctor PresumptionNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentJudicial Review of Agency DecisionCervical Spine InjuryPre-existing Medical ConditionWorkers' Compensation Appeals
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,984 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