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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 03-05-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2009

Ann J. Schneider v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Ann J. Schneider appealed a district-court judgment from Travis County that upheld an order by the Board of Trustees of the Employees Retirement System of Texas. The Board had denied Schneider's long-term disability benefits claim due to both late filing and a preexisting condition. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, reviewed the case under the substantial-evidence rule, confirming that the administrative law judge correctly allocated the burden of proof between the parties. The appellate court found that Schneider's alleged disability was caused by a condition for which she received treatment prior to her insurance coverage, thus falling under the preexisting-condition exclusion. Furthermore, the court concluded that Schneider failed to provide sufficient evidence to qualify for an exception or waiver to this exclusion, as she could not prove "actively at work" for the required consecutive months. Consequently, the district court's judgment affirming the Board's decision was affirmed.

long-term disabilityinsurance denialpreexisting conditionuntimely claimadministrative reviewappellate courtburden of proofcarpal tunnel syndromeinsurance policy interpretationTexas law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cates v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co.

An employee sustained a compensable lumbar spine injury at work, leading to a claim for permanent partial disability benefits. Her treating orthopedic specialist, Dr. Seung H. Lee, opined she had a ten percent permanent disability based on subjective findings, though he expressed difficulty in precise quantification. Despite this, the trial court dismissed the claim, stating the employee failed to meet the burden of proof. The appellate court, citing T.C.A. § 24-718, clarified the admissibility of medical opinions based on subjective findings. Recognizing the incomplete record and the trial court's dissatisfaction with the medical evidence, the appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing additional medical proof.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWorker's Compensation AppealMedical Expert TestimonySubjective Findings AdmissibilityRemand for Further EvidenceSpinal InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryMedical EvaluationBurden of ProofTrial Court Discretion
References
2
Case No. ADJ10257811
Regular
Dec 18, 2020

JORGE ANDRADE vs. CECILIO ARREDONDO TERREZAS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's decision finding the applicant was not an employee at the time of injury, concluding he failed to meet his burden of proof. The applicant did not provide evidence establishing an employment relationship with the labor contractor or its associated individuals, and evidence indicated he paid for his own transportation. A dissenting opinion argued the board and judge incorrectly shifted the burden of proof, stating the applicant is presumed an employee and the employer must prove otherwise. The dissent would have rescinded the decision for failure to meet the employer's burden.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderEmployee StatusLabor ContractorBurden of ProofEmployment RelationshipPresumption of EmployeeLabor CodeRebuttal of Presumption
References
5
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2021-07-0312
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2024

Cable, Craig v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods Co., Inc.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's denial of the employer's motion for partial summary judgment. The employee, Craig Cable, sought benefits for a right shoulder injury sustained while working for Conagra Foods. The employer argued the employee failed to meet expert disclosure deadlines and lacked proof of permanent medical impairment. The trial court permitted the employee to depose his treating physician, Dr. Smith, who testified to a work-related injury but no permanent impairment. The Appeals Board found the employer failed to comply with procedural rules by not filing an amended statement of undisputed facts and not establishing the employee reached maximum medical improvement for all conditions, thus failing to shift the burden of proof.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessPermanent Medical ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementProcedural RulesInterlocutory AppealShoulder InjuryCervical Spine InjuryMedical Testimony
References
7
Case No. 2014-07-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Cullum, Paulette v. K-Mac Holding Corp d/b/a Taco Bell Docketing

Paulette Cullum, an employee of K-Mac Holding Corp. d/b/a Taco Bell, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for a knee injury allegedly sustained on July 18, 2014. Employee claimed she injured her right knee while turning on the food line but could not specify the mechanism of injury. The employer and its insurance carrier, Manufacturer's Alliance, contested the claim, arguing a lack of a specific incident and no medical proof of causation primarily arising out of employment. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied the request, finding that the employee failed to meet the burden of proof that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment, citing insufficient medical evidence and speculative causation.

Expedited HearingWorkers' Compensation ClaimKnee InjuryCausationBurden of ProofDenial of BenefitsIdiopathic InjuryMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployment Hazard
References
6
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,562 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