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
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. No. 21-0797
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2023

Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. v. El Pistolon II, Ltd.

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed a court of appeals' judgment concerning equitable tolling in a defective design and development lawsuit. Plaintiff El Pistolón II, Ltd. initially sued Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. for negligence and breach of contract, but the suit was dismissed for a deficient certificate of merit. El Pistolón refiled, arguing that the limitations period should have been tolled during the appeal of the earlier suit. The Court clarified that equitable tolling, including "Hughes tolling" or a broader "legal impediment rule," is limited in scope and does not apply when an earlier suit is dismissed and refiled. As a result, El Pistolón's claims were deemed time-barred, and the trial court's summary judgment was reinstated.

Equitable TollingStatute of LimitationsCertificate of MeritCivil Practice and Remedies CodeDefective PleadingLegal PrecedentAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentTexas LawConstruction Defects
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Equitable General Insurance Co. of Texas v. Yates

Thomas Yates was initially awarded workers' compensation for injuries while employed by Schepps Dairy. Equitable General Insurance Company of Texas, the carrier, obtained a summary judgment against Yates on grounds of untimely claim filing. Yates' subsequent motion for a new trial was conditionally granted upon payment of $500 in attorney's fees to opposing counsel. After Yates filed an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay, the trial court denied the motion for new trial. The court of appeals reversed, and this court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that while conditional grants of new trial are generally permissible, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion in the face of an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay the imposed monetary condition.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialAttorney's FeesConditional GrantAbuse of DiscretionAffidavit of Inability to PayTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorkers' CompensationEquitable ConsiderationsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ8853372
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

FRANK SOFER vs. VERA CAMPBELL KDWZ, TOWER GROUP COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was an employee of Vera Campbell and KDWZ. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge's report, which found the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations due to equitable tolling. This equitable tolling was based on the applicant's timely civil lawsuit against the employer for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance, which alerted the defendant to the potential claim. The Board also noted the defendant presented no evidence to rebut the applicant's medical evidence of injury.

ADJ8853372Petition for ReconsiderationEmployee statusLabor Code 2750.5Statute of limitationsEquitable tollingMedical evidenceEstoppelLachesTraumatic brain injury
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. State

James E. Carpenter, a Tennessee Army National Guard member, was injured in 1985. He received federal incapacitation pay and medical expenses, and state Medicaid benefits. His workers' compensation claim, filed in 1987, was dismissed by the Claims Commissioner as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Carpenter appealed, arguing that these payments tolled the statute or that equitable estoppel applied. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the dismissal, ruling that neither federal nor state benefits qualified as 'voluntary payments of compensation' to toll the statute, and found no affirmative conduct by the state to support equitable estoppel.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Payments of CompensationMedicaid BenefitsEquitable EstoppelFederal BenefitsTennessee National GuardMotor Vehicle AccidentBack and Neck InjuriesState Employee Claim
References
4
Case No. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2008

Amendola v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

Beth Amendola, a former pharmaceutical representative (PR) for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS), initiated a collective action alleging that BMS failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Amendola moved for authorization to send notice of this collective action to other PRs and sought equitable tolling for their claims. The Court, presided over by Judge Denise Cote, denied Amendola's motion. It concluded that BMS's PRs are likely exempt from FLSA's overtime provisions under the administrative employee exemption, although they do not qualify for the outside sales exemption. Consequently, both the authorization for notice to potential plaintiffs and the request for equitable tolling were denied.

FLSAOvertime PayAdministrative ExemptionOutside Sales ExemptionCollective ActionEquitable TollingPharmaceutical IndustryPharmaceutical RepresentativesEmployee MisclassificationDiscretion and Independent Judgment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Majid v. Fielitz

Abdul Majid, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against correctional officers Ralph Fielitz and Robert Acken, alleging assault during his transfer and subsequent fraudulent concealment of evidence. Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence related to the fraudulent concealment claims, contending its irrelevance to disputed facts and its prejudicial effect. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, denied the motion. The decision states that the evidence is relevant to the issue of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations regarding Acken's identity, which is an issue for the court to resolve, not a jury. A subsequent Rule 403 determination will be made if equitable tolling is found.

Inmate RightsPrison AssaultFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingStatute of Limitations42 U.S.C. 1983Correctional FacilityVideo EvidenceMotion in LimineFederal Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myer v. Callahan

The case involves pro se plaintiff Turner Myer III seeking judicial review of a Social Security Administration (SSA) decision denying disability benefits. The defendant, SSA, moved to dismiss due to untimely filing. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting dismissal because Myer failed to file within the statutory period, didn't request an extension, and equitable tolling was deemed inapplicable. The District Court reviewed Myer's objections to this recommendation, finding them without merit. The court concluded that Myer's previous attempts to file in other district courts did not justify equitable tolling due to his subsequent inaction and the absence of court misconduct or threats. Consequently, the District Court overruled Myer's objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityEquitable TollingUntimely FilingSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantPrisoner LitigationFifth CircuitMagistrate Judge ReportDistrict Court Order
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 843 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