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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. 16-CA-12241
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1985

Dunn v. Pilgrim Industries, Inc.

The Regional Director of Region Sixteen of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Michael Dunn, filed a verified petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Pilgrim Industries, Inc. The petition alleged that Pilgrim Industries engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 540, following its acquisition of Pluss-Tex Poultry Company, and by unilaterally implementing changes to employee benefits and work shifts. The court found reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. However, it declined to issue a mandatory bargaining order, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the Union that could not be remedied by a final Board order. The court instead granted a prohibitory injunction, restraining Pilgrim Industries from actions intended to erode employee support or membership in the Union and from unlawfully dissipating Union strength, while explicitly allowing the previously instituted pay increase, pension plan, and second work shift to remain. The ultimate resolution of successor employer status and bargaining duty was deferred to the NLRB.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j) InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeSuccessor EmployerDuty to BargainUnilateral ChangesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeTemporary InjunctionProhibitory Injunction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandas Industries, Inc. v. Employers Fire Insurance Co.

Employers Fire Insurance Company, the appellee, sued Bandas Industries, Inc., the appellant, in Bell County district court to recover $36,354.00 in retrospective premiums on two insurance policies (worker’s compensation and comprehensive general liability). The policies, effective from June 1975 to June 1976, included a retrospective premium endorsement allowing for adjustment based on loss experience. Bandas Industries, Inc. argued the retrospective premium provision was unconscionable and counterclaimed for $100,000.00 due to policy cancellation. The district court ruled in favor of Employers Fire Insurance Company, finding the contract conscionable and denying the counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling Bandas Industries, Inc.'s points of error regarding unconscionability, parol evidence, policy cancellability, and the existence of a safety program.

Workers' compensationRetrospective premiumInsurance contractUnconscionabilityContract cancellationParol evidenceFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewJudgment affirmed
References
4
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capital Newspapers Division—The Hearst Corp. v. Hartnett

This CPLR Article 78 proceeding involved a petitioner challenging a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals, which found the petitioner guilty of violating Labor Law § 162 (4) concerning meal periods for night shift pressmen. The petitioner unilaterally advanced the meal period window, prompting a complaint from the Pressmen's Union. The Industrial Board of Appeals upheld the violation, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the statutory requirement could be waived. Citing precedent from Matter of American Broadcasting Cos. v Roberts, this court found that the Board erred in concluding that the statute's purpose precluded any waiver or modification of meal period terms. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Industrial Board of Appeals to determine if a valid waiver, freely and knowingly made, had occurred.

Labor LawMeal PeriodCollective Bargaining AgreementWaiver of Statutory RightsAdministrative ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationsPressmen's Union
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Lee

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a conflict among courts of appeals regarding the admissibility of employer negligence as a sole cause defense in personal injury lawsuits where the employer is immune under workers' compensation. The Court clarifies its prior decision in Varela v. American Petrofina Co., ruling that it does not bar a defendant from introducing evidence that the plaintiff's employer's negligence was the sole cause of injury. The case involves Arthur B. Lee, who sued Dresser Industries, Inc., a silica supplier, after developing silicosis from working at Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. The trial court had erroneously excluded evidence of Tyler Pipe's negligence as a sole cause. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case, also providing guidance on jury instructions for sole cause and contributory negligence in future proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSole CauseContributory NegligenceProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnSilicosisEmployer NegligenceComparative ResponsibilityJury InstructionsEvidence Admissibility
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lozano v. H.D. Industries, Inc.

Pablo A. Lozano, a City of El Paso employee, sued H.D. Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of a "Pro-Patch Pothole Patcher," for severe leg injuries sustained while cleaning hardened sand from the machine's bind. Lozano's claims included products liability in negligence and strict liability, alleging design and marketing defects due to a lack of safety mechanisms and inadequate warnings. The jury found no defect in design or marketing and no negligence by H.D. Industries, instead assigning 25% responsibility to Lozano and 75% to the City of El Paso. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that the inclusion of the City in the jury charge was harmless error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectMarketing DefectWarning LabelsJury Charge ErrorComparative ResponsibilityWorkers CompensationAppellate Review
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 4,499 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