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

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Crowe

This workers' compensation death case addresses whether death benefits can be paid in a lump sum when a bona fide dispute regarding the carrier's liability exists, without requiring a settlement. The jury found John Wayne Crowe's death was job-related and that weekly installments would cause manifest hardship to his widow, Mrs. Crowe, and son, leading to a lump sum award of $126,062.89. Appellant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, contested this, citing prior interpretations of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, § 8(d) that limited lump sum payments to remarriage or settlement. The court, however, clarified that the statute allows lump sum payments simply if a bona fide dispute over liability exists, regardless of settlement. Finding such a dispute, the court overruled Nationwide's appeal and affirmed the judgment for Mrs. Crowe.

Lump Sum PaymentsDeath BenefitsWorkers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationBona Fide DisputeInsurance LiabilityManifest HardshipAppellate Court DecisionTexas LawPrior Case Precedent Overruled
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.

Thomas Esparza, Jr. appealed a trial court's judgment regarding his usury counterclaim against Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. The central dispute revolved around the applicability of a 'bona fide error' defense under Texas usury law, stemming from an employee's unauthorized charge of interest on Esparza's account. The appellate court clarified that intent to charge usurious interest is immaterial if such interest was, in fact, charged through a unilateral act within implied authority, and that mistakes of law do not fall under the 'accidental and bona fide error' exception. The court found that Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. had charged $93.60 in usurious interest. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment, awarding Esparza a forfeiture of $390.40 and $6,000.00 in attorney's fees as an offset against Nolan Wells' original claim, thus affirming the modified judgment.

Usury LawStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Error DefenseImplied AuthorityDebtor-Creditor RelationsAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesTexas Civil StatutesCommercial TransactionsInterest Rates
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Koch Foods, Inc.

This case involves a collective action brought by current and former hourly paid production workers (Plaintiffs) against Koch Foods, LLC, a chicken processing facility, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs claim they are not compensated for time spent retrieving, donning, doffing, and washing sanitary and protective gear, washing hands, and walking to/from work areas, nor for bona fide meal periods. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted in part Koch Foods' motion for summary judgment regarding claims barred by FLSA § 203(o) and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for donning, doffing, and hand washing after April 13, 2006, ruling that these activities constitute "changing clothes" and "washing" of the person. However, the court denied summary judgment on whether these activities are "integral and indispensable" or "work" under the FLSA, finding material issues of fact. Additionally, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the bona fide meal period claim and the de minimis doctrine defense, citing factual disputes regarding activities performed during meal breaks and the amount of uncompensated time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liquidated damages was also denied due to unresolved factual issues and the lack of established actual damages. Finally, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for court-ordered mediation.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Wage and Hour LitigationSummary Judgment MotionsCollective Action LawsuitPortal-to-Portal Act ExclusionsDonning and Doffing TimeCompensable Work TimeUnpaid Meal BreaksCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Worker Protection
References
47
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carol S. Covington v. the Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island/Connecticut

Carol S. Covington appealed a take-nothing summary judgment concerning her claim that The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island/Connecticut breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Covington's claim stemmed from Travelers' alleged failure to pay weekly indemnity benefits for a 1990 physical injury sustained during her employment with American Airlines. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission had previously awarded benefits. The core issue on appeal was whether Covington presented more than a scintilla of evidence that Travelers' liability to pay benefits was "reasonably clear" and whether the dispute was merely bona fide. The court found that Covington did present sufficient evidence, preventing summary judgment, and concluded that Travelers did not conclusively establish a good-faith dispute. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealBad Faith Insurance ClaimWorkers' CompensationDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingInsurance LitigationAppellate ProcedureEvidence SufficiencyReversal of JudgmentTexas LawIndemnity Benefits
References
19
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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L & F DISTRIBUTORS v. Cruz

Justice Hinojosa concurs with the majority on the retaliatory discharge claim but dissents regarding the unpaid overtime compensation claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The dissent examines whether the employee, Cruz, qualified as a "bona fide executive" based on his salary and supervisory duties over warehouse workers and a janitor. Justice Hinojosa concludes that Cruz met the definition of a bona fide executive as per 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f), and therefore was not entitled to overtime pay. The justice recommends sustaining L & F's cross-point and rendering a take-nothing judgment on Cruz's claim for overtime compensation.

FLSAovertime paybona fide executiveretaliatory dischargesupervisory dutieswage and houremployment lawexempt employeedepartment managementjudicial dissent
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,798 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