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. 14-05-00831-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Joseph Earl Bias v. State

Joseph Earl Bias appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, asserting errors in the trial court's granting of the State's challenges for cause to two venirepersons and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The case originated from an incident where Bias allegedly pulled a gun and fired shots in a shoe store. The jury found Bias guilty, assessing a twenty-year confinement. The appellate court found the evidence factually sufficient, citing positive identification of Bias by the complainant and corroborating testimony. The court also determined that any error in excusing venirepersons did not deprive Bias of a lawfully constituted jury, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyEvidentiary ReviewVoir DireJury SelectionChallenges for CauseCredibility of WitnessesCriminal AppealTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
10
Case No. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
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

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide has been involved in a protracted legal dispute since 1997, challenging the denial of his workers' compensation benefits. This opinion addresses his appeal of a 2014 trial court ruling, which declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed $3,000 in sanctions. Akinwamide contested the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power, and the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, arguing his common-law claims remained pending. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power had expired, and Akinwamide's claims were indeed barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to repeated relitigation of issues previously decided in multiple prior appeals. The court also upheld the sanctions and vexatious litigant declaration, citing Akinwamide's continuous filing of frivolous pleadings and attempts to relitigate settled matters, which demonstrated an improper purpose including harassment.

Workers' Compensation DisputeVexatious LitigantSanctionsSubject-Matter JurisdictionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPlenary PowerAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigationFrivolous Pleading
References
28
Case No. 14-02-00582-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Akinwamide, Patrick Olajide v. Transportation Insurance Company, Automatic Data Processing Inc., and CNA Insurance Co.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide filed a lawsuit after an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim against his employer and two insurance companies, alleging fraud, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees based on limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Akinwamide appealed, asserting the trial court improperly granted summary judgment by failing to negate his equitable tolling defense to limitations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Akinwamide failed to provide summary judgment proof for his tolling claims and that his lawsuit was untimely even if tolling applied. Thus, the appellees successfully established their limitations defense.

Summary judgmentLimitations periodRes judicataCollateral estoppelEquitable tollingFraudulent concealmentNegligenceWorkers' compensation claimAppellate reviewAffirmative defense
References
17
Case No. SDO 0335244
Regular

FREDDY GOMEZ vs. EL TORITO RESTAURANT, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involved a petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on a prior declaration of bias and an alleged appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition. The WCAB found that while a previous case established a past appearance of bias, the current petition lacked specific evidence of present bias or appearance thereof. Furthermore, the WCAB concluded that sufficient time had passed since the prior proceedings, and the appearance of bias, if any, had sufficiently attenuated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Appearance of BiasActual BiasBlanket RecusalMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. SDO 341698
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

EVA STERBA vs. CARDIFF SOFWARE, INC., CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: A petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on a past admitted bias against the applicant's law firm was denied. The Appeals Board found that the six-year-old declaration of bias had been sufficiently attenuated and lacked present evidence of actual or apparent bias. Future disqualification would require specific evidence demonstrating bias.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeBiasTrovillion Inveiss Ponticello DemakisAppearance of BiasBlanket RecusalRobbins v Sharp HealthcareDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 529 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