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. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Steven Kroesen (Deceased), Jennifer Kroesen (Widow) vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. Dkt. # 1, 41
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Poole

Petitioner Frederick Walker filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his 2000 conviction for robbery and assault in Monroe County. He alleged improper show-up identification procedures and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court addressed four grounds: the suggestiveness of two show-up procedures, insufficient evidence for attempted robbery, and multiple claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The court denied the claim regarding the second show-up on the merits, found the claims concerning the first show-up and evidentiary sufficiency to be procedurally defaulted, and dismissed the ineffective assistance claims for lack of deficient performance or prejudice. Consequently, Walker's request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied and his petitions dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselShow-up IdentificationDue ProcessRobberyAssaultAttempted RobberyProcedural DefaultExhaustion of State RemediesState Conviction Challenge
References
44
Case No. 2015-03-0196
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2016

Molitor, Leisa v. Shoe Show, Inc.

Leisa Molitor, a sales associate for Shoe Show, Inc., sustained a back injury in the employer's parking lot while helping a disabled gentleman with his wheelchair before clocking in. Shoe Show denied responsibility, claiming the act was altruistic and outside her job duties. Ms. Molitor argued she was on premises, in uniform, and providing customer service, from which Shoe Show benefited as the man subsequently purchased shoes. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Knoxville, presided over by Judge Lisa Lowe Knott, found that Ms. Molitor's injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The matter will now proceed to the second stage for a Compensation Hearing on medical and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentArising Out Of EmploymentParking Lot InjuryCustomer ServiceMutual Benefit TestCompensabilityBifurcated HearingTennessee LawSales Associate
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2009

Lopez v. Allied Amusement Shows, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a street fair after riding a slide, alleging that workers hired by a subcontractor of Allied Amusement Show, Inc., applied a slippery substance and failed to provide a safety buffer. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendant Allied Amusement Show, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found that the defendant did not own or control the slide and therefore could not be held liable for the alleged negligence of the independent contractor, nor was there a nondelegable duty applicable to the defendant.

Summary JudgmentAmusement Ride InjuryIndependent ContractorNondelegable DutyPremises LiabilityTort LawNegligenceAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 01-13-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2015

Karl Wawarosky v. Fast Group Houston Inc.

Karl Wawarosky appealed a summary judgment in favor of FAST Group Houston Inc. in his unlawful termination lawsuit, alleging age and race discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. The trial court granted summary judgment after Wawarosky was terminated for showing a bullet to coworkers and making a threatening remark, which FAST deemed a violation of company policy. Wawarosky challenged the trial court's rulings on discovery, evidence, and the merits of his discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding Wawarosky failed to exhaust administrative remedies for age discrimination and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact to show that FAST's non-discriminatory reason for termination was pretext for race discrimination. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings or discovery decisions.

Employment LawAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTCHRAAdministrative RemediesDisparate TreatmentPretextPolicy ViolationAppellate Procedure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grilikhes v. International Tile & Stone Show Expos

Plaintiff, a union carpenter, suffered an injury while dismantling an exhibit at the Javits Center. He filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Exposition Services, Inc. (MES) and International Tile & Stone Show, Inc. (ITSS), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Both MES and ITSS moved for summary judgment, which the lower court granted. MES contended that the plaintiff was its special employee, making the claim barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). ITSS argued it was neither an owner nor a contractor, thus not liable under the Labor Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against MES, concluding that MES was the plaintiff's special employer. The court also affirmed the dismissal against ITSS, determining that ITSS lacked the necessary control over the worksite to be considered an "owner" for Labor Law liability.

Special EmployeeLabor Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation BarSummary Judgment MotionPremises LiabilityWorksite ControlContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionJavits Center
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hester

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Wichita Falls Division denied the Plan Administrator's motions for sanctions and to show cause against Great Southern Oil and Gas Co., Inc. and its officers. The Administrator alleged Great Southern was in civil contempt of a prior sale order by failing to disburse life insurance policy proceeds to estate creditors. The court found it had subject matter jurisdiction to interpret its own sale order but ultimately concluded that the sale order did not explicitly require Great Southern to perform or refrain from specific conduct. Therefore, the Administrator failed to establish a prerequisite for civil contempt sanctions by clear and convincing evidence. The court noted that the Administrator could pursue a breach of contract action instead.

BankruptcySanctionsCivil ContemptSale OrderSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial InterpretationFifth CircuitSupreme CourtDebtors' EstatePlan Administrator
References
16
Case No. 10-0121
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2013

the Finance Commission of Texas, the Credit Union Commission of Texas, and Texas Bankers Association v. Valerie Norwood, Elise Shows, Maryann Robles-Valdez, Bobby Martin, Pamela Cooper, and Carlos Rivas

Justice Johnson dissents from parts III and IV of the Court's opinion and its judgment. The case involves six homeowners who sued the Finance and Credit Union Commissions' interpretations of home equity lending provisions. The homeowners challenged seventeen interpretations, but the dissenting justice argues they failed to allege specific injuries or demonstrate standing. The justice contends that the Court's decision constitutes an advisory opinion and that the case should be remanded to the trial court to allow the homeowners an opportunity to replead and establish jurisdiction, aligning with constitutional separation of powers and open courts provisions which preclude advisory opinions.

Texas Supreme CourtDissentStandingJurisdictionHome Equity LoansAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory Judgments ActAdvisory OpinionConstitutional LawSeparation of Powers
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,187 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