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
Apr 11, 1986

Rivera v. Feinstein

Plaintiffs Manuel Rivera, Idalia Gonzalez, and members of Local 2H sought a preliminary injunction to prevent a disciplinary hearing against Gonzalez and to secure office access for Rivera, arguing violations of LMRDA free expression rights. They also moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint. The court denied the preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm and noting that internal union remedies should be exhausted, particularly as charges against Gonzalez were partially withdrawn and an explanation could resolve the dispute. Rivera's office access was deemed an arbitration issue. However, the court granted leave to file the supplemental complaint, finding no undue delay or prejudice to the defendants.

Union DisputeLabor RightsPreliminary InjunctionLMRDAFree SpeechIntra-union ConflictDisciplinary HearingSupplemental ComplaintExhaustion of RemediesArbitration
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jowers v. LAKESIDE FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Lynn Jowers sued Lakeside Family and Children’s Services for wrongful termination, alleging discrimination based on his medical condition (atrial fibrillation) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Jowers filed an EEOC complaint more than two years after his termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Lakeside moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, while Jowers cross-moved to dismiss Lakeside's motion, citing ignorance of the law regarding disability discrimination. The court granted Lakeside’s motion, dismissing Jowers’ complaint with prejudice, ruling that his explanation for the late filing was insufficient for equitable tolling, particularly as he had previously filed an EEOC complaint.

Employment DiscriminationADAAtrial FibrillationWrongful TerminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOCMotion to DismissCriminal Background CheckFalsified Employment Application
References
13
Case No. Court File No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Swafford v. Forestry Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff Danny Swafford, operating Swafford Farms, held a workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance policy with Defendant Forestry Mutual Insurance Company. An underlying complaint was filed against Swafford by Albert Wayne Capshaw, an alleged independent contractor, for injuries sustained. Swafford then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that Forestry Mutual had a duty to defend him in the Capshaw complaint. Forestry Mutual moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy only covered employees, not independent contractors, and thus it had no duty to defend. The Court, applying Tennessee law, found no ambiguity in the policy's terms or the allegations of the Capshaw complaint regarding Capshaw's status. Consequently, the Court granted Forestry Mutual's motion for summary judgment, concluding that no duty to defend existed.

Workers' Compensation PolicyDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorEmployer LiabilityDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeContract InterpretationTennessee LawSixth Circuit
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2015

Evans, Ralph Kenneth

This document contains two criminal complaints filed by Ralph-Kenneth Evans. He alleges violations of his constitutional rights and various federal and state codes by officials in Grand Saline and Van Zandt County, Texas. Evans claims unlawful arrest for driving without a license, fraud, extortion, and deprivation of liberty, asserting that the legal system is operating unconstitutionally. The complaints also include a "Surrender of Social Security Card and Number" and a "Release of Power of Appointment," challenging government agencies' jurisdiction over him as a private state citizen. He references numerous legal codes and case precedents to support his claims of sovereign status and demands cessation of alleged trespasses.

Criminal ComplaintConstitutional RightsDue ProcessRight to TravelHabeas CorpusTaxationSocial SecuritySovereign CitizenJurisdictionFraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Magruder v. Halliburton Co.

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Patricia A. Magruder against Halliburton Company and its former CEO, David Lesar. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the defendants misrepresented or omitted material information concerning various company aspects, including a bribery incident, liquidity, asbestos reserves and liability insurance, the bankruptcy of Harbison-Walker, and the Barracuda-Caratinga project. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The Court granted the motion, dismissing various claims. Some claims were dismissed with prejudice (e.g., those based on mere puffery or barred by the statute of repose for the Nigeria bribery incident), while others were dismissed without prejudice due to deficiencies in pleading particularity, scienter, and loss causation. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint by June 1, 2018.

Class ActionSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to DismissPleading RequirementsPSLRAScienterLoss CausationMaterial MisrepresentationMaterial OmissionAsbestos Liability
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schiro v. Catania

This case concerns a motion filed by third-party defendant John Schiro to dismiss a third-party complaint brought against him by the Joint Board of Shirt, Leisure Wear, Robe, G-love and Rainwear Workers Union, acting as third-party plaintiff. Schiro argued that the Union's attorney lacked proper authorization to file the complaint and that the verification was improper. He contended that the Union, his employer, had an insurance policy covering him and a policy against seeking indemnity from employees involved in accidents during employment. The court denied the motion, finding that the affidavits presented by Schiro and his attorney constituted hearsay and failed to sufficiently demonstrate a lack of authority by the Union's attorney, while reaffirming the defendant's right to challenge such authority. The court granted leave to renew the motion upon proper papers.

Motion to DismissThird-Party ActionAttorney AuthorityPleading VerificationHearsay EvidenceCivil Practice ActEmployer LiabilityInsurance CoverageCooperation ClauseActive Tort-feasor
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messier v. Bouchard Transportation

Plaintiff Richard Messier, a seaman, filed a maritime action against Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., initially alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, and seeking maintenance and cure for B-cell lymphoma. Messier later dropped his Jones Act claim. The primary legal question was the definition of "manifest" for admiralty purposes: whether an asymptomatic illness contracted while in service but diagnosed later qualifies for maintenance and cure. The court denied Messier's motion for summary judgment and granted Bouchard's cross-motion, ruling that "manifest" requires the exhibition of symptoms while in the service of the ship. Additionally, the court rejected Messier's alternative theory that he was entitled to maintenance and cure for lymphoma because it manifested while he was potentially eligible for maintenance and cure for a back injury, as he was not actively receiving such benefits. As a result, Messier's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as moot.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureSeamanB-cell LymphomaAsymptomatic DiseaseManifestation of IllnessSummary JudgmentSecond CircuitDisease Onset
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 15,727 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