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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1950

Milne Chair Co. v. Hake

The Board of Review found former employees of Milne Chair Company eligible for unemployment benefits, a decision upheld by the Chancellor. Milne Chair Company appealed, contending that the unemployment resulted from a labor dispute in which the employees participated, not from dismissal. The court examined whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the employees' unemployment was due to their dismissal, which the Board believed ended the labor dispute. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate evidence to support that the unemployment stemmed from dismissal rather than solely a labor dispute. Subsequently, on a petition to rehear, the court amended its opinion, finding the claimants guilty of misconduct (other than gross) and imposing a four-week disqualification period for benefits, while confirming that the employer would not be charged for experience rating purposes.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeEmployee DismissalPicket LineContract BreachEmployment Security ActSubstantial EvidenceJudicial ReviewBoard of ReviewMisconduct
References
4
Case No. 13-11-00673-CV, 13-11-00674-CV, 13-12-00020-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2013

Valiant Petroleum, Inc. v. Michael McCormick, Wade Williams, Pablo Fernandez, Jeff McKenzie, and Dale Sumpter

This appeal arises from a contractual dispute between Valiant Petroleum, Inc. (Appellant) and FMC Technologies, Inc., et al. (Appellees) concerning a settlement agreement. Valiant appealed the trial court's orders granting partial summary judgment to FMCTI and denying Valiant's motion for summary judgment and declaratory relief. The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the phrase "other current or potential future projects" within the settlement agreement and the admissibility of parol evidence to prove promissory fraud or consideration. The Court of Appeals found the disputed phrase unambiguous and upheld the trial court's exclusion of parol evidence for fraud claims. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court's judgments only to the extent of declaring that the recitals constitute a part of the settlement agreement, affirming all other aspects of the judgments.

Contractual disputeSettlement agreementSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentParol evidence ruleAmbiguityPromissory fraudAppellate procedureTexas lawContract interpretation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Co. v. Texas Employment Commission

The Texas Company, appellant, sought judicial review in Jefferson County of a Texas Employment Commission decision awarding unemployment compensation benefits to forty-four individual appellees, who were non-striking employees. The core issue was whether the appellees, who refused to cross picket lines during a strike by the Oil Workers Union due to a well-founded fear of physical violence, were "participating in" a labor dispute and thus disqualified from benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, Article 5221b-3(d). The district court upheld the Commission's decision, applying the substantial evidence rule. The appellate court affirmed this, ruling that refusal to cross a picket line due to well-founded fear of violence does not constitute participation in a labor dispute, and found ample evidence to support the appellees' fears, including past strike violence and threats during the current strike. The court also admitted evidence of violence from a prior strike involving the same union in the same locality, finding it relevant to the foundation of the claimants' fears. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputePicket LineFear of ViolenceSubstantial Evidence RuleAdministrative ReviewStatutory InterpretationNon-Striking EmployeesTexas Employment CommissionWork Stoppage
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engelmeyer v. Simon

The case involves a labor dispute where an employer (plaintiff) breached a contract by locking out union workers and refusing negotiation, leading to a strike by the defendant union. The plaintiff accused the union of violence, property damage, and unlawful picketing, seeking injunctive relief. The court found no credible evidence of violence or illegal interference by the union, noting that their only potentially improper act (following a delivery vehicle) ceased when advised by police. The judge ruled that the union's picketing was lawful and did not constitute a secondary boycott, upholding the union's right to assert its claims. Consequently, the court found no illegal interference with the plaintiff's property rights and issued a judgment in favor of the defendant union.

Labor DisputeUnion ActivitiesPicketingSecondary BoycottContract BreachEmployer LockoutInjunctive ReliefLabor LawJudicial OpinionIndustrial Relations
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Stuebing

This case involves a dispute between an injured worker's attorneys and the Insurance Company of North America (INA), the insurer under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, concerning attorney's fees. INA had paid benefits to Mrs. Joseph C. Stuebing and later joined her attorneys, Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn & Collins, to recover common law damages from a third-party tort-feasor. The third-party suit was settled for $100,000, with INA receiving $34,090.21, its full subrogated amount. The trial court awarded $5,500 in attorney's fees against INA, which INA appealed, arguing the award was excessive or unwarranted given that the settlement amount was initially offered before the attorneys' involvement. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the attorneys' time, while otherwise upholding the principle that an insurer can be liable for a portion of the employee's attorney's fees under certain circumstances.

Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation ActSubrogation RightsThird-Party Tort-feasorInsufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandSettlement AgreementContingent FeeInsurance Carrier
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,750 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