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

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. ADJ12349952
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Dinh Tran vs. UL, LLC; Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted in part a petition for removal filed by Dinh Tran, who sought to prevent the discovery of raw testing data from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to privacy concerns. While affirming the underlying Findings and Orders on its merits, the Board intervened to correct a clerical error and amend the orders regarding the confidentiality of medical records. The amended order strictly limits the reproduction and disclosure of raw testing materials and data, requiring their destruction after litigation and mandating defense counsel to ensure confidentiality and report any violations, thereby safeguarding the applicant's privacy rights.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorRaw Testing DataRight to PrivacyClerical ErrorsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiver of PrivilegeNarrowly Circumscribed DisclosureConfidentiality
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Data Race, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

This case involves claims of patent infringement by Data Race, Inc. (plaintiff) against Lucent Technologies, Inc. (defendant) regarding U.S. Patent No. 5,764,639 for a "System and Method for Providing a Remote User With a Virtual Presence To An Office." Data Race sought a preliminary injunction and damages, while Lucent counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The court denied Data Race's motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Lucent's motion for summary judgment on damages, and found no literal or equivalent infringement by Lucent's Virtual Telephone product. Consequently, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant, Lucent Technologies, Inc., on the issue of infringement. The court declined to fully address Lucent's defenses of patent invalidity and unenforceability, deeming them moot.

Patent InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionVirtual PresenceTelephonyData NetworkingVoice over IPPrior ArtPatent Validity
References
116
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. 02 Civ. 1243
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2003

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

This opinion addresses a discovery dispute concerning the production of electronic data stored on backup tapes in a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by Laura Zubulake against UBS. Following a prior order for a sample restoration of emails, Zubulake sought to compel UBS to produce all remaining backup emails at UBS's expense. The court, applying a seven-factor test, ruled that both parties must share the costs of restoring and searching the inaccessible backup tapes. Specifically, UBS is ordered to bear 75% of these costs, while Zubulake is responsible for the remaining 25%. However, UBS must exclusively cover all other costs, including the review and production of the electronic data once it has been converted to an accessible format, emphasizing that only costs related to making inaccessible data accessible should be shifted.

e-discoverycost-shiftingelectronic databackup tapesemail productiongender discriminationdiscovery disputeproportionalityRule 26Rule 68
References
15
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,110 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