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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2004

In Re CEI Roofing, Inc.

This case concerns an emergency motion filed by CEI Roofing, Inc. and its affiliated debtors, undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy, to authorize the payment of pre-petition employee wages and benefits. The motion, seeking relief under Sections 105(a) and 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, was granted by Judge Harlin D. Hale. The court permitted the debtors to pay employee payroll obligations and maintain various benefit programs, including health plans, retirement benefits, and workers' compensation. The decision emphasized the necessity of these payments for preserving the debtors' going-concern value and was supported by the consent of the secured creditor, aligning with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme for such claims.

Chapter 11Emergency MotionEmployee ObligationsWage ClaimsBenefit ProgramsPriority ClaimsCash CollateralGoing Concern ValueBankruptcy Code SectionsCritical Vendors Doctrine
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02370 [237 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Whitfield v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Assn.

The plaintiff, John "Divine G" Whitfield, doing business as Divine G Entertainment, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Whitfield had sued Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and its members for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging inadequate payment for website and paralegal services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Whitfield failed to adequately allege injury for fraud and that civil conspiracy claims stand or fall with the underlying tort. The court also determined that defendants were not unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff failed to establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for Labor Law and FLSA claims. Additionally, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed for failing to meet rigorous standards, and piercing the corporate veil was not adequately pleaded.

FraudUnjust EnrichmentEmployment RelationshipQuantum MeruitLabor LawFLSAEmotional DistressCorporate VeilPiercing Corporate VeilPleading Sufficiency
References
26
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. 14-18-00896-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Controller Chris Brown Council Members Amy Peck, Tarsha Jackson, Abbie Kamin, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, Dave Martin, Tiffany D. Thomas, Greg Travis, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Edward Pollard, Martha Castex-Tatum, Mike Knox, David Robinson, Michael Kubosh, Letitia Plummer, and Sallie Alcorn And Director of Finance Tantri Emo v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System Board Chairman Sherry Mose Board Vice-Chairman Lenard Polk Board Secretary Rhonda Smith And Board Trustees Roderick J. Newman, Roy W. Sanchez, Lonnie Vara, Barbara Chelette, Denise Castillo-Rhodes, David Donnelly, Edward J. Hamb II, and Adrian Patterson

This case is a continuation of a dispute between the Houston Municipal Employee Pension System and the City of Houston regarding statutorily required pension payments. The Pension System sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City to make these payments and asserted ultra vires claims against city officials. The City raised counterclaims and third-party claims, challenging the Pension System's standing and asserting governmental immunity. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the Pension System. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the City's arguments concerning independent contractors, 401(k) program eligibility, retrospective relief, contractual claims, and res judicata.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsPension SystemMunicipal EmployeesMandamusSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Constitutional LawAppellate ReviewEmployee Benefits
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division v. Bass

This is an appeal from a workers' compensation case involving Roland Bass, a state employee, who was injured while working as a game warden for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The jury initially found that Mr. Bass had suffered an on-the-job injury causing total and permanent incapacity and awarded him accrued compensation, interest, a lump sum, and medical expenses. The State appealed, asserting the trial court erred in denying its motion to modify the judgment, arguing that under article 8309g, section 12(a), Mr. Bass was not entitled to weekly workers' compensation payments for the period he utilized sick leave. The appellate court sustained the State's first point of error, concluding that the period during which Mr. Bass utilized sick leave should have been excluded from compensation payments. The court found that an employee electing to use sick leave is not entitled to weekly compensation until that leave is exhausted. The State's second point of error, alleging the trial court erred in refusing a sole cause instruction, was overruled. The cause was reversed in part and remanded to the trial court with instructions to reform the judgment by awarding only those weekly compensation payments after the date the sick leave was exhausted.

Workers' CompensationState EmployeeSick Leave BenefitsAccrued CompensationLump Sum PaymentMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationTrial Court ErrorJudgment ModificationRemand
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1990

Waldeck v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A New York Supreme Court panel reversed a lower court's decision that had granted a deferred retirement allowance to a Department of Sanitation employee, Barbaro. Barbaro, a member of NYCERS since 1969, sought a deferred retirement allowance in July 1989, with an intended retirement date of August 18, 1989. However, he was dismissed on August 17, 1989, for soliciting unlawful payments. The appellate court determined that his dismissal occurred prior to his intended retirement date, thereby rendering him ineligible for the vested retirement allowance under Administrative Code § 13-173.1. The court clarified that the effective date of discharge was when the Commissioner signed the termination letter, irrespective of the date for commencing an appeal.

Retirement AllowancePublic EmployeeDismissalVestingAdministrative LawCivil ServiceNew York CityDepartment of SanitationAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn & Hardart Co. v. Ross

This Article 78 proceeding reviewed an order from the Industrial Board of Appeals, entered November 17, 1976, which had found petitioners liable for pension payments to certain retired employees. The case originated when Horn & Hardart Company terminated its noncontributory pension plan in 1972 due to financial difficulties, prompting complaints from pensioners and an Industrial Commissioner's order for payment. Petitioners challenged the Commissioner's jurisdiction, but the court affirmed it, citing Labor Law § 198-c(2) and evidence of promised "lifetime pensions." While confirming the order's core, the court modified it to strike a provision that expanded its scope to all similarly situated retirees, noting that such an expansion was not originally contemplated and that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) now governs such protections, even if pre-ERISA causes of action remain under state regulation.

Pension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsIndustrial Board of AppealsIndustrial Commissioner JurisdictionArticle 78 ProceedingRetirement BenefitsLabor LawERISAAdministrative RemediesJudicial Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,082 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