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. AP-76,737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2013

Rockwell, Kwame A. AKA Rockwell, Kwane A.

Kwame A. Rockwell was convicted of capital murder for his role in the robbery and shooting death of Daniel Rojas, and subsequently sentenced to death. On direct appeal, Rockwell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and the jury's finding of future dangerousness. He also raised points of error concerning jury selection, the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, a Confrontation Clause claim, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. Furthermore, Rockwell presented several constitutional challenges to Texas's death penalty statutes and jury instructions. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas reviewed all twenty-one points of error and ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error.

Capital MurderDeath PenaltyRobberySufficiency of EvidenceFuture DangerousnessJury SelectionVoir DireEvidence AdmissibilityConfrontation ClauseProsecutorial Misconduct
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 1996

Carlson v. Rockwell Space Operations Co.

Michelle Carlson filed a lawsuit against Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC), Rockwell International Corp., and Jesse Castillo, alleging Title VII violations (hostile environment, quid pro quo, retaliation) and common law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, negligent hiring, training, and supervision). The court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants. It determined that Castillo was not an "employer" under Title VII and his conduct, though inappropriate, did not meet the legal thresholds for intentional infliction of emotional distress or assault. Rockwell International was also found not to be Carlson's employer. RSOC successfully argued that Carlson failed to establish a hostile work environment, quid pro quo harassment, or retaliation, and that her common law claims lacked independent actionable torts, leading to their dismissal.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssaultNegligent HiringTexas Law
References
44
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00878 [158 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Matter of Estate of James Yoo v. Rockwell Compounding Assoc., Inc.

James Yoo, a pharmacy student, died from fentanyl intoxication during an externship at Rockwell Compounding Associates, Inc. His mother commenced an action against Rockwell, alleging negligence, which was referred by Supreme Court to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine if an employer-employee relationship existed. The Board concluded that such a relationship did exist. The estate appealed this interlocutory decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, asserting that piecemeal review of workers' compensation issues should be avoided, and the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship is not a threshold legal issue warranting review before a final decision on the death benefits claim.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipInterlocutory AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewFentanyl IntoxicationWrongful DeathDeath Benefits ClaimJudicial DismissalPiecemeal Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Rockwell International

This worker's compensation case involves Marilyn Patterson's claim against Rockwell International. A default judgment was initially entered against Rockwell International after it returned the summons, believing it was no longer liable due to a facility sale. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's denial of Rockwell International's motion to set aside the default judgment, ruling that Rockwell had not "appeared" in the action and failed to present a meritorious defense. However, the Court reversed the trial court's finding of permanent total disability, citing insufficient expert medical testimony to support the permanency of Patterson's fibrositis. The case was therefore remanded for a new hearing specifically on the issue of the extent of permanent disability, if any, and corresponding compensation.

Worker's CompensationDefault JudgmentExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefensePermanent DisabilityMedical TestimonyRules of Civil ProcedureAppearanceRemandFibrositis
References
15
Case No. 03-97-00410-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Rockwell International, Inc. Weyerhaeuser Company Inc. And Diamond Shamrock, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

The Appellants, Rockwell International, Inc., Weyerhaeuser Company, Inc., and Diamond Shamrock, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59(a)(1)(B). Consequently, the appeal originating from the District Court of Travis County was dismissed.

Motion to DismissAppellate ProcedureTexasWorkers' CompensationPer CuriamDistrict CourtCourt of AppealsJudicial District
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbuckle Broadcasters, Inc. v. Rockwell International Corp.

Plaintiff Arbuckle Broadcasters, Inc. and intervener Insurance Company of North America (INA) sued Defendant Rockwell International Corporation for breach of warranties and deceptive trade practices under the Texas DTPA. Rockwell denied liability and sought attorneys' fees, alleging the DTPA claims were groundless and brought in bad faith. A jury found in favor of Rockwell, awarding attorneys' fees. Arbuckle and INA filed various post-trial motions, including motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court, presided over by District Judge Robert W. Porter, denied all post-trial motions, affirming the jury's verdict that the DTPA claims were groundless and brought in bad faith, and found jurisdiction over INA's claims via ancillary jurisdiction.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of WarrantiesAttorneys' FeesGroundless ClaimsBad Faith LitigationAncillary JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIntervention as of RightRule 24(a)(2) Fed. R. Civ. P.Rule 15(b) Fed. R. Civ. P.
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cornwell v. Rockwell International

The court affirmed the order, with costs, based on the opinion issued by Madam Justice Ann T. Mikoll at the Appellate Division. Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Cooke concurred with the decision.

Appellate ReviewAffirmationJudicial PanelCourt DecisionLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hashop v. Rockwell Space Operations Co.

This case involves a dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) where four plaintiffs, NSS Instructors for Rockwell Space Operations Company (RSOC), claimed uncompensated overtime. Plaintiff Hashop also alleged retaliatory discharge. The Court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' FLSA claims were not time-barred, treating them as a continuing violation. The Court determined that the NSS Instructors, despite their extensive in-house training, did not meet the "professional" exemption criteria under FLSA due to a lack of consistent discretion and judgment in their duties, thus granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on this issue. However, the Court granted summary judgment to RSOC on Hashop's retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that he failed to prove his termination was "but for" his complaints about overtime, as his actions (secretly tape-recording a supervisor) provided sufficient non-discriminatory grounds for dismissal.

FLSASummary JudgmentProfessional ExemptionOvertime CompensationRetaliatory DischargeStatute of LimitationsContinuing ViolationEmployee ClassificationFair Labor Standards ActFederal Court
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vergara v. Scripps Howard, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of The New York Times, sustained severe leg and back injuries in 1989 when his trousers were caught by a conveyor, pulling him into machinery. The accident occurred because the Times had removed safety guards originally welded onto the machine by the manufacturer's predecessor. Plaintiff sued Rockwell International Corporation, the successor to the manufacturer, alleging failure to warn about the danger of removing the safety guards. The trial court denied Rockwell's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but modified the damages award. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's decision, finding insufficient evidence that Rockwell had notice of the dangerous modification made by the Times, either actually or constructively, and thus no duty to warn existed. The court concluded the accident was caused by the employer's negligence, not Rockwell's, and dismissed the complaint.

Workers' Compensation LawProduct LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityDuty to WarnNegligenceMachine ModificationSafety GuardsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
Case No. ADJ2233663
Regular
Feb 15, 2011

MULJI PATEL vs. BOEING NORTH AMERICAN (Formerly ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL), AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Mulji Patel's petition for removal. The WCAB found that the petition was procedurally deficient as it lacked proof of service and failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Additionally, the WCAB determined that applicant's incarceration prevented him from pursuing reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment, and no order existed compelling defendant to pay the disputed lien. Finally, the disqualification of defendant's counsel was deemed premature and unsupported by applicable law under these circumstances.

Petition for RemovalSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentLien ClaimIncarcerationDisqualification of CounselBurden of ProofMedical Legal CostsReserved JurisdictionPetition for Writ of MandateAdverse Parties
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 16 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