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
Apr 26, 2016

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. 03-16-00761-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1999

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

The article "Parallel Litigation" by James P. George provides a comprehensive overview of the strategies and remedies for managing multiple, overlapping lawsuits across different jurisdictional settings: intra-jurisdictional, inter-state, state-federal, and international. It defines parallel litigation, distinguishes it from related litigation, and explores five responses: doing nothing, transfer and consolidation, dismissal, stay, and antisuit injunctions. The author analyzes common doctrines like the first-filed case rule, in rem cases, and declaratory actions, emphasizing the discretionary nature of remedies and the role of comity. The article traces the slow development of precedent, particularly federal court prominence in this area, and highlights the specific tests and challenges in applying these remedies across various legal systems.

Parallel LitigationDuplicative LitigationForum ShoppingAntisuit InjunctionsComityJudicial EconomyAbstention DoctrinesFirst-Filed RuleConsolidationVenue Transfer
References
33
Case No. MDL-1206
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1999

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

This order approves eight settlement agreements in the multidistrict litigation, In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1206. The litigation involves claims by royalty and working interest owners against major oil companies for systematically underpaying for crude oil by depressing 'posted prices' below market value. The class comprises millions of members across the US, asserting both state law 'Lease Claims' and federal 'Antitrust Claims' of price-fixing. The court addresses jurisdiction, class certification under Rule 23, the fairness and adequacy of the settlements, and issues related to notice, claim procedures, attorneys' fees, and incentive awards.

Antitrust LawClass Action SettlementOil and Gas RoyaltiesMultidistrict LitigationPrice Fixing ConspiracyFairness DoctrineRule 23 CertificationSupplemental JurisdictionDue Process RightsAttorney's Fees Award
References
71
Case No. 90-3973
Regular Panel Decision

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

This class action sought approval of a settlement to restructure the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, created to compensate asbestos victims. The Trust was facing insolvency due to underestimated claims, high litigation costs, and inefficient payment methods. The court-approved settlement aims to remove the Trust from the tort system, reduce transaction costs, and ensure a more equitable distribution of limited funds to both present and future claimants. It establishes a 'Trust Distribution Process' with payment priorities for more seriously injured claimants (Level One) and a cap on initial payments to safeguard funds for future claimants and those with less severe injuries (Level Two). The court certified a mandatory, non-opt-out class, approving the settlement as a necessary and fair compromise to address the Trust's financial crisis and the broader national asbestos litigation challenge.

Asbestos LitigationMass TortsClass ActionBankruptcy ReorganizationLimited FundTrust FundClaim ResolutionEquitable DistributionFuture ClaimantsSettlement Approval
References
26
Case No. M2004-00324-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2005

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appeal concerns the apportionment of attorney fees and litigation costs following a compensable on-the-job injury, workers' compensation recovery, and a tort settlement with a third party. The employer, Bi-County Solid Waste Management, had subrogation rights, leading to a dispute over fee allocation between the plaintiff's attorney, Mr. Rassas, and the intervener's attorneys, Mr. Nolan and Mr. McDonner. The trial court apportioned the fees but deducted a previously awarded workers' compensation fee from the tort action fee and allocated litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed the fee apportionment but vacated the deduction of the workers' compensation fee, finding no statutory basis for it, and affirmed the discretionary costs award.

Attorney FeesWorkers' CompensationSubrogation RightsTort ActionFee ApportionmentLitigation CostsCommon Fund DoctrineAmerican RuleAppellate ReviewDeduction of Fees
References
3
Case No. M2004-00846-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2005

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The State of Tennessee appealed the assessment of discretionary costs in an eminent domain action against property owner Wanda Dean Wallace. The Circuit Court had awarded Wallace discretionary costs after a jury found her entitled to damages exceeding the State's initial tender. The State argued its exemption from such costs in eminent domain cases. The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that a 1994 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-17-812 removed the express statutory authority to assess discretionary costs against the State. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and vacated the $5,650 award of discretionary costs against the State.

eminent domaindiscretionary costsstatutory interpretationappealTennessee lawgovernmental immunitysovereigntyexpert witness feesappraisal feesrule of civil procedure
References
22
Case No. 01S01-9708-BC-00173
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1998

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

This case addresses whether the State of Tennessee may be held liable for discretionary costs in a workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff Billy R. Phillips sustained a work-related injury and sought to recover discretionary costs, including a treating physician's fee, court reporter costs, and a vocational disability expert's fee. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled that the State is only liable for costs expressly permitted by statute, specifically allowing the treating physician's fee under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-226(c)(1) as an exception to the general prohibition against taxing discretionary costs against the State found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(d). The Court affirmed the claims commission's judgment denying other discretionary costs, while upholding the modified disability award of thirty-seven percent to the body as a whole.

Discretionary CostsState LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActClaims Commission StatuteStatutory InterpretationCourt CostsTreating Physician FeesVocational Disability ExpertRule 54.04Tennessee Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

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

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This ERISA class action case, initiated in 2007, involved allegations against Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan for miscalculating pension benefits. After three years of litigation and another three years of settlement negotiations, a $45.9 million class action settlement was reached for 8,612 participants. The Court granted preliminary approval in December 2013 and final approval after a fairness hearing in April 2014. This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, requesting 25% of the fund ($11,475,000) for fees, $591,011.17 for costs, and $5,000 incentive awards for each of the six named plaintiffs. The Court, applying the percentage of the fund method and using empirical studies for comparison, found the requested 25% fee reasonable and granted the motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards.

Class ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorneys' FeesCommon Fund DoctrineLodestar MethodPercentage of Fund MethodERISA LitigationPension BenefitsStatute of LimitationsActuarial Experts
References
20
Case No. 2014-07-0013 / 79380-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2016

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

The employee, Louis Garassino, sought permanent disability benefits for a work-related back injury. The trial court initially awarded benefits based on his medical expert's impairment rating and included discretionary costs for the expert's examination fees. The employer, Western Express, Inc., appealed the award of these discretionary costs, arguing they were not recoverable under Tennessee law. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the case, finding that the trial court erred in granting the medical expert's examination and record review fees as discretionary costs. Consequently, the Appeals Board affirmed the compensation order in part, but reversed and modified the portion related to the disputed discretionary costs, certifying the modified order as final.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Disability BenefitsDiscretionary CostsMedical Expert FeesImpairment RatingAppeals Board DecisionTrial Court ErrorStatutory InterpretationRules of Civil ProcedureTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,437 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