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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 15-CV-681-LY
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This is a securities-fraud class action brought by the Lead Plaintiff, Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, against Whole Foods Market, Inc. and its executives. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, claiming Whole Foods made false and misleading statements about its pricing and financial performance due to systematic overcharging. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing the plaintiff failed to adequately plead material misrepresentation, scienter (wrongful state of mind), and loss causation. The court found that the new allegations did not remedy the deficiencies of the previous complaint, specifically lacking particularity for false statements, a strong inference of scienter for the defendants, and a plausible link for loss causation. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that further amendments would be futile.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissWhole Foods MarketFinancial MisrepresentationOverchargingPleading StandardsScienterLoss CausationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 32 NY3d 991
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2018

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Petitioners, including Wayne Spence (President of the New York State Public Employees Federation) and two state dairy product specialists, challenged a policy by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. The policy prohibited employees responsible for inspecting regulated entities from campaigning for or holding elected office, citing conflict of interest. Petitioner Gregory Kulzer's request to serve as a county legislator was denied after he had previously been approved and elected, leading to a formal policy revision. Petitioners initiated a hybrid declaratory judgment action/CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing the policy violated First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division rejected their claims, applying the Pickering standard. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, finding the policy not unconstitutional. However, dissenting Judges Rivera and Wilson argued that the lower courts erred by not applying the heightened 'exacting scrutiny' standard established in United States v Treasury Employees and reaffirmed in Janus v State, County, and Municipal Employees, which applies to widespread limitations on public employee speech. They would have reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration under this stricter standard.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechConflict of InterestHatch ActExacting ScrutinyPickering StandardJudiciary LawFreedom of SpeechGovernment PolicyElected Office
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Case No. 05-20-00936-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2022

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas at Dallas affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment from Collin County. Appellants, Diana Convenience, LLC, et al., appealed a judgment awarding damages to Dollar ATM, LLC for breach of contract, specifically challenging pre-trial orders imposing discovery sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's "death penalty sanctions" against the appellants, finding that their repeated failure to comply with discovery requests and resistance to providing material evidence justified the severe sanctions, establishing that the signatories had authority and prohibiting them from contesting ATM revenue. However, the court vacated a prior award of $1,050 in attorney's fees, ruling it was not supported by legally sufficient evidence of reasonableness.

Discovery SanctionsBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureMemorandum OpinionDeath Penalty SanctionsMotion to Compel
References
15
Case No. 2015-02-0193; 2015-02-0183
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, employees Robin Moore and Stephen Seiferth alleged respiratory injuries due to repeated pesticide exposure at their workplace, Ingles Markets, Inc. The employer provided an initial emergency room evaluation but failed to offer a panel of physicians. Following expedited hearings, the trial court ordered the employer to provide a physician panel but denied temporary disability benefits. The employer appealed, arguing lack of causation and disputed injury dates, but failed to provide a hearing transcript or sufficiently develop their arguments. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, presuming it was supported by sufficient evidence, and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPesticide ExposureRespiratory InjuriesNeurological ProblemsInterlocutory AppealExpedited HearingPanel of PhysiciansTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationSufficiency of Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiffs initially filed this case alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically that Allsup's Convenience Stores conspired to avoid paying overtime to hourly employees by requiring them to work off the clock. The court had previously granted class certification, and over 1,000 employees opted into the lawsuit. Following discovery, the Defendants filed a Motion for Decertification, arguing that the plaintiffs were not "similarly situated." The court examined the standard for decertification, considering factual and employment settings, individual defenses, and procedural fairness. Concluding that there was no uniform policy causing off-the-clock work and significant factual disparities existed among the plaintiffs' claims, the court granted the motion to decertify the class. All opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, with only the claims of the named plaintiffs, Lesa Proctor and Duncan Proctor, remaining.

FLSAClass ActionDecertificationOff-the-Clock WorkOvertime PaySimilarly SituatedWage and HourJudicial EconomyManageabilityFactual Disparities
References
23
Case No. 2015-02-0193, 2015-02-0183
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2015

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

In these consolidated interlocutory appeals, employees Robin Moore and Stephen Seiferth alleged respiratory injuries from pesticide exposure at Ingles Markets, Inc. The employer failed to provide a panel of physicians, leading to an expedited hearing where the trial court mandated a physician panel but denied temporary disability benefits. Ingles Markets appealed, disputing causation and injury dates, but provided no transcript or evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, presuming sufficient evidence, and remanded the cases for further proceedings.

Respiratory InjuriesPesticide ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsInterlocutory AppealsPanel of PhysiciansTemporary DisabilityCausationSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureConsolidated Cases
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action brought against National Convenience Stores (NCS) by the estate and family of Ramon Tamez, an employee who died in a car accident while on company business. NCS, a non-subscriber to worker's compensation, appealed a jury verdict finding it negligent. The appellate court analyzed whether NCS breached duties related to unsafe driving habits and employee fatigue. It concluded that NCS had no duty to train an experienced driver on basic traffic laws or to monitor his driving record. Furthermore, it found no evidence that NCS had actual or constructive knowledge of Ramon Tamez's fatigue to trigger a duty to prevent him from driving. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionEmployer NegligenceEmployee DutyDriving SafetyEmployee FatigueNon-subscriber EmployerProximate CauseLegal DutySufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involved a dispute between the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Local 116, and Wegmans Food Markets concerning the arbitrability of an employee's termination. Employee Derrick McCullough was dismissed for alleged theft, and the Union sought to compel arbitration, contending the collective bargaining agreement's theft exclusion was ambiguous or misapplied. The District Court granted summary judgment for Wegmans, denying the Union's cross-motion, concluding that the exclusionary clause was unambiguous. The court found Wegmans' characterization of McCullough's conduct as theft was valid based on the evidence presented at the time of termination, thereby rendering the grievance non-arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActTheft Exclusion ClauseEmployee TerminationGrievance ProcedureContract InterpretationFederal District CourtUnion Rights
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,236 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