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

Complete Auto Sales, Inc. v. Life Insurance Co. of North America

Plaintiff Complete Auto Sales, Inc. (Complete) filed a motion to remand its case against defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) back to state court. The case originated from Complete seeking contribution/indemnity from LINA, its insurer, for claims made against Complete by an injured employee. LINA had removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption. While some claims were partially remanded earlier, Complete now argues that LINA's insurance policy is exempt from ERISA jurisdiction, citing a prior ruling where a similar LINA policy was found to be state-governed. The court agreed, finding the current policy similar and not preempted by ERISA, thus lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted, sending the case back to the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

ERISA PreemptionRemoval JurisdictionState Law ClaimsInsurance Policy ExemptionFederal Question JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to RemandTexas LawFifth CircuitDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patino v. Complete Tire, Inc.

Reynaldo C. Patino, an employee of Complete Tire, Inc., was injured while working and subsequently terminated. He filed a negligence lawsuit against Complete Tire, Inc., alleging inadequate training and supervision, leading to his injury. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Complete Tire, Inc., and also imposed discovery sanctions against Patino for insufficient responses. On appeal, Patino challenged both rulings, arguing the summary judgment was improper and the sanctions were an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Patino failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his negligence claims and that the sanctions were justified.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployer DutyWorkplace SafetyStandard of CareCausationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eadie v. Complete Co., Inc.

Christopher A. Eadie was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1997 while working for Complete Company, Inc. He subsequently filed workers' compensation claims in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Complete and its insurer, Westfield Insurance Companies, moved for summary judgment in Tennessee, arguing Eadie was precluded by the election of remedies doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Eadie's active pursuit of his claim in South Carolina constituted a binding election of remedies, barring his Tennessee claim. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this finding, but the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Eadie's actions in South Carolina were sufficient affirmative acts to constitute a binding election of remedies.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesInterstate ClaimSummary JudgmentJurisdictionTennessee Supreme CourtSouth Carolina Workers' CompensationAffirmative ActForum ShoppingDouble Recovery
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. 01-06-00694-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. v. Burke

LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. appealed a $155,000 jury verdict in favor of its employee, Ronald Burke, in a nonsubscriber negligence case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence and causation findings, and that the expert medical testimony was reliable. The court also upheld the exclusion of collateral source evidence regarding Burke's compensation for his injuries. Additionally, the court reviewed LMC's supersedeas bond, vacating a prior order and setting the bond at $74,868.02 based on LMC's determined net worth of $149,736.04. A separate appeal challenging the trial court's findings on the security issue was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Workplace InjuryNegligence ClaimNonsubscriber EmployerLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceCausation EvidenceExpert Medical TestimonyCollateral Source RuleSupersedeas BondNet Worth CalculationAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ850295 (GRO 0035125)
Regular
May 24, 2010

Corey Abel vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Best Buy's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's order closing discovery and setting trial. Defendant Best Buy argued the judge erred by closing discovery before a crucial deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Strait, which was scheduled to clarify inconsistencies and permanent disability opinions. The Board found the deposition necessary for a complete record and to facilitate a fair decision or potential settlement. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including completion of the AME's deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorDepositionClosing DiscoveryRescind OrderLumbar Spine InjuryStock ClerkPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentUnorthodox Basis
References
0
Case No. ADJ8809588
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

**SHARON SNOW,** vs. **WEST COAST COSMETIC MEDICAL; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,**

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the trial judge ordered the case to trial and closed discovery. The defendant argues insufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, citing the applicant's cancellation of a deposition due to a perceived discrimination claim that was not formally filed. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding good cause to reopen discovery. The matter is returned to the trial level for a priority conference to ensure complete discovery before proceeding to trial.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDeposition CancellationLabor Code section 132aDiscovery CompletionIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryDigestive System InjuryExilis TechnicianMedical Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ1472209 (OAK 0316991)
Regular
May 03, 2010

ALEJANDRO AMEZCUA vs. HENDRICKSEN, THE CARE OF TREES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal to reconsider the denial of their motion for further discovery. The Board found that the applicant's actions, including filing a Declaration of Readiness and agreeing to a settlement, led the defendant to discontinue discovery, believing a settlement was imminent. To prevent significant prejudice to the defendant and ensure a just resolution, the Board rescinded the discovery denial and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. This allows the defendant to complete discovery if settlement is not reached.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceStatus ConferenceFurther DiscoveryOgilvieLeBoeufDeclaration of ReadinessSettlement AgreementCompromise and ReleaseUnverified Petition
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,451 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