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. 2022-03-0580
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

Rash, Clayton v. Fine Line Transportation, LLC

Clayton Rash, a truck driver for Fine Line Transportation, suffered a broken left wrist at work. While undergoing physical therapy for his wrist, he sustained a left shoulder injury, which he attributed to exercises performed during therapy. Fine Line Transportation denied benefits for the shoulder injury, arguing against causation. The Court found Mr. Rash's testimony credible and, relying on the opinion of a panel-selected physician, Dr. Kenneth Grinspun, determined that the shoulder injury was a direct and natural consequence of his compensable wrist injury. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Rash medical treatment for his left shoulder, including recommended surgery, and ordered Fine Line Transportation to pay temporary partial disability benefits.

Shoulder InjuryWrist FracturePhysical Therapy InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationExpedited HearingEmployer's Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. AP-76,470 & AP-76,471
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2011

State of Texas Ex Rel. Patricia R. Lykos, Relator v. the Honorable Kevin Fine

The State of Texas, through Relator Patricia R. Lykos, sought writs of prohibition and mandamus against Judge Kevin Fine to prevent a pretrial evidentiary hearing. The hearing was initiated by capital murder defendant John Edward Green, Jr., who challenged the constitutionality of Texas's death penalty statute (Article 37.071, § 2) as applied. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas determined that the trial judge lacked the legal authority to conduct such a pretrial hearing or issue a declaratory judgment on the statute's "as-applied" constitutionality. The court emphasized that an "as-applied" challenge can only be made after conviction and sentencing, based on specific circumstances. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the State's requested relief, ordering the dismissal of Green's motion.

Capital PunishmentMandamusProhibitionAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengeEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPretrial MotionDeclaratory Judgment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp.

The dissenting opinion argues to affirm the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, asserting that the claimant, Seymour Fine, met the 'mixed purpose' test for work performed at home. The dissent highlights Fine's regular pattern of working at home, his supervisor's agreement regarding the benefit to the employer, and his dedicated workspace at home. It emphasizes that the accident occurred on a non-regular workday when Fine was carrying work-related materials to continue work at home after visiting his office, suggesting he was working against a deadline. The dissent also addresses the majority's focus on Fine not demanding extra pay, inferring that working at home compensated for his slow pace due to a physical disability, with his supervisor's permission.

Work from HomeSpecial Assignment RuleMixed Purpose TestCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises WorkCommute AccidentEmployer BenefitRegular Work PatternPhysical Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Lindner

This case involves an appeal concerning judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which adjudged certain defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the Taylor Law and imposed fines. The judgment dated April 8, 1980, finding criminal contempt, was affirmed. However, the judgment dated July 14, 1980, which imposed additional fines, was modified. Specifically, provisions adjudging Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, guilty of criminal contempt and fining them were deleted. The court determined that the international unions had complied with the prior order by instructing locals to return to work, and their actions did not constitute willful defiance.

Criminal ContemptTaylor LawLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawPublic WelfareCollective BargainingStrike SanctionsInjunction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State of NY v. Unique Ideas

This consumer fraud action, initiated by the Attorney-General, concerns Unique Ideas, Inc. and Ernie Tucker's violation of a 1974 consent judgment. Defendants, within a month, continued their "get rich quick" scheme by mailing deceptive solicitations to millions. Special Term found them in civil contempt, attaching $209,000 for victim restitution and imposing a conditional fine. The Appellate Division drastically reduced this fine. The Court of Appeals modified the order, provisionally assessing a $209,000 compensatory fine to indemnify defrauded subscribers and cover the Attorney-General's expenses, emphasizing that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive, and should relate to the scope of injury. The court affirmed the order as modified, answering the certified question in the negative.

Consumer FraudCivil ContemptConsent Judgment ViolationRestitutionCompensatory FinePunitive DamagesJudiciary LawGeneral Business LawAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hertel v. Schwimmer

The plaintiff, Hertel, president of Local 38, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, initiated an action to enforce a one million dollar fine against an unnamed union member. The fine stemmed from the defendant's Federal criminal RICO conviction for misusing union funds, violating article 17, section 1 (m) of the union's constitution. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Hertel's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that the union had complied with its internal procedures and that the fine was consistent with labor law principles established in Scofield v NLRB.

Union DisciplineFinancial MisconductFederal RICO ConvictionSummary Judgment AppealGeneral Associations LawLabor LawAppellate ReversalUnion Constitution ViolationMisuse of Union FundsDue Process in Union Proceedings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. 03-10-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Debra Smith v. James East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits And Terri Bayless East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits

Debra Smith appealed a take-nothing judgment in a wrongful-death action following her daughter S.S.'s death from alcohol poisoning. Smith sued James East and Terri Bayless East, owners of Avery Fine Wine & Spirits, for allegedly providing alcohol to S.S., a minor, alleging common-law negligence and negligence per se. A jury found James 35% responsible, S.S. 25% responsible, and Smith 40% responsible. The district court denied recovery, applying Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme which treats a wrongful-death plaintiff and the decedent as a single 'claimant' whose combined responsibility (65%) exceeded the 50% recovery threshold. The appellate court affirmed, holding that binding precedent compelled the conclusion that Smith and S.S. are a single 'claimant' for purposes of section 33.001, thus barring recovery.

Wrongful DeathAlcohol PoisoningMinor Alcohol ConsumptionNegligence Per SeProportionate ResponsibilityComparative NegligenceStatutory InterpretationClaimant DefinitionDerivative ClaimsJury Verdict
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 407 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