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

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Saic Inc. Derivative Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses a shareholder derivative suit against SAIC, Inc. and its Board of Directors. Plaintiffs Welch and Stellini alleged that the directors consciously ignored or perpetuated significant wrongdoing related to the CityTime program, involving massive overbilling and fraud on New York City. The court granted SAIC's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the demand futility requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and Delaware law. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not plead with particularity that a majority of the board directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability for breaching their duties of loyalty and good faith, as required by the Caremark and Rales tests for oversight liability. The court found that the alleged 'red flags' (SOR admissions, core operations, public reports, magnitude of fraud, and similar past misconduct) were insufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive knowledge and bad faith inaction by the board. Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend was denied.

Shareholder Derivative SuitDemand FutilityCorporate GovernanceFiduciary DutyDuty of LoyaltyDuty of Good FaithOversight LiabilityCaremark DoctrineRales TestMotion to Dismiss
References
53
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03664 [139 AD3d 461]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Wietschner Ex Rel. JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Dimon

This case involves a shareholder derivative action brought by Sam Wietschner on behalf of JPMorgan Chase & Co. against James Dimon and other respondents. The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the amended complaint and denial of leave to amend. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, citing res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court found that previous federal rulings on similar shareholder derivative actions, which failed to allege particularized facts for demand futility, precluded the current claims. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not adequately allege facts demonstrating a reasonable doubt about the board's independent judgment or a substantial likelihood of personal liability, especially given an exculpatory clause in the corporate certificate of incorporation.

Shareholder Derivative ActionDemand FutilityRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAnti-Money Laundering ProgramCorporate GovernanceBreach of Fiduciary DutyDismissal of ComplaintLeave to AmendAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1980

Sullivan v. Held

John Sullivan, a 34-year-old foreman, was severely injured after falling from a scaffold while repairing the brick facing of a building. Plaintiffs argued successfully under Labor Law section 240, an absolute liability statute, that the accident was caused by a defective scaffold rope. The defendant and third-party defendant, Nier Sheet Metal Roofing, appealed a jury verdict awarding John Sullivan $1,100,000 for personal injuries and $100,000 for a derivative action. Nier contended that evidence regarding a safety belt was improperly excluded, that comparative negligence (CPLR 1411) should apply to Labor Law § 240 actions, and that the damages were excessive. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the judgment, rejecting all three contentions and upholding the absolute liability principle under Labor Law § 240.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceJury VerdictDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Worker
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heritage v. Van Patten

The case addresses whether Labor Law section 241 can impose liability on a landowner who is also a coemployee. The court determined that such an imposition of liability would contradict subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which establishes workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by a coemployee's negligence. It was emphasized that regardless of his status as the property owner, Van Patten remained a coemployee in all employment-related matters with the plaintiff. The decision draws parallels to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388, asserting that statutes creating derivative liability do not negate the coemployee exclusivity defense, thereby barring a derivative action dependent on coemployee negligence.

Coemployee ImmunityLabor LawPremises LiabilityExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationDerivative LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1990

Fullenwider v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This is an appeal in a worker's compensation case. The plaintiff, Lucille Fullenwider, alleged she developed industrial asthma while working for Motorola, Inc., leading to total and permanent incapacity. The jury found she did not suffer an occupational injury, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in permitting two undisclosed expert witnesses to testify when interrogatories requesting their names were not supplemented thirty days prior to trial. The appellate court concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony without a finding of good cause, the error was harmless as the plaintiff was not prejudiced, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesGood Cause ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionHarmful ErrorWorker's CompensationIndustrial AsthmaOccupational InjuryUndisclosed Witnesses
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capps v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

Archie Capps appealed a take-nothing judgment, arguing that American Mutual Liability Insurance Company improperly deducted both worker's compensation and social security benefits from his disability insurance payments. Capps, disabled in 1972, received disability policy payments from 1973 and a lump-sum worker's compensation settlement in 1974, which included attorney's fees. He also received monthly social security benefits. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the insurance policy's anti-duplication clause permitted the deduction of both worker's compensation and social security payments. Furthermore, the court found that attorney's fees awarded in the worker's compensation case were part of the total amounts payable and were properly deducted, and that the calculation of payments was correct.

AppealDisability InsuranceWorker's CompensationSocial Security BenefitsAnti-duplication ClauseAttorney's FeesLump-sum SettlementBenefit DeductionsPolicy InterpretationInsurance Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,821 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