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

Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians & Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund, brought suit against Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc. seeking an audit of payroll records from 1992-1994 to verify pension fund contributions. Steven Scott moved for summary judgment, asserting that fifteen prior settlement agreements with William Moriarity, a Pension Fund Trustee and Local 802 President, fully settled all monetary claims. The court found that Steven Scott reasonably relied on Moriarity's apparent authority, and the Pension Fund's actions, including cashing checks and failing to repudiate the agreements, established equitable estoppel and ratification. Consequently, the court granted Steven Scott's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Pension Fund was bound by the agreements and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

ERISALMRAPension FundEquitable EstoppelApparent AuthorityRatificationSettlement AgreementsSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsUnion
References
21
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. 2019-08-0846
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2021

Jackson, Rodnecia v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Rodnecia A. Jackson, appealed a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment to her employer, Federal Express Corporation, and dismiss her workers' compensation case. Jackson claimed a left eye injury from foreign material during employment. While the employer initiated benefits, Jackson's petition for additional benefits was filed over a year after the last voluntary payment. The employer argued the petition was untimely and her ongoing complaints were unrelated. The trial court sided with the employer. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Jackson's arguments on appeal did not adequately challenge the timeliness issue.

Workers' Compensation AppealTimeliness of PetitionSummary JudgmentCorneal AbrasionEye InjuryDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsBenefit DenialAppellate ReviewPro Se Appellant
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Insurance

This case involves Fulton Bellows, LLC (FBLLC) suing Federal Insurance Company for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. FBLLC sought defense coverage under its Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy for an age discrimination lawsuit (Gaskey v. Fulton Bellows, LLC) filed against it. Federal Insurance denied coverage, citing a prior acts exclusion and untimely notice of the claim. The court denied Federal Insurance's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discriminatory acts occurred after the policy effective date and whether the late notice prejudiced the insurer, given it was within the policy period. However, the court granted summary judgment for Federal Insurance on the bad faith failure to pay claim and the TCPA claim, concluding that Federal Insurance asserted good faith defenses and its denial was not deceptive or unfair.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment Practices Liability (EPL)Prior Acts ExclusionNotice ProvisionClaims-Made PolicyOccurrence PolicyPrejudice RuleBad Faith ClaimTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)Summary Judgment
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Coxsey

Employers Mutual Casualty Company appealed an injunction order issued by a state trial court that sought to prevent interference with a worker's compensation suit by actions in other courts, including federal court. The state trial court's order was issued after a federal judge had already issued a temporary restraining order against the worker's compensation trial. The appellate court reversed the state court's injunction, holding that state courts lack the authority to enjoin federal court proceedings in in personam actions, citing Donovan v. Dallas. The court emphasized that such state orders conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes federal law as supreme. Consequently, the state trial court's injunction was deemed invalid.

InjunctionFederal vs State JurisdictionSupremacy ClauseWorkers' CompensationContempt ActionRemoval JurisdictionOccupational DiseaseTrial InterferenceAppellate ReviewMootness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Little v. Federal Container Corporation

The plaintiff employee, Norman Little, sued the defendant employer, Federal Container Corporation of Tennessee, for damages alleging breach of a 12-month employment contract due to wrongful discharge without cause. The Trial Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the employer breached the contract by discharging Little because his work was deemed satisfactory by his supervisor, Mr. R. E. McCrory, and thus the defendant could not discharge him for cause. On appeal, the court held that the contract provision making Mr. McCrory the sole judge of satisfactory work did not prevent the employer from discharging the plaintiff for just cause. The court found the Trial Judge's ruling on this point was an error of law that restricted the introduction of evidence. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new trial to allow both parties to present full proof regarding the existence of just cause for the plaintiff's discharge.

Employment ContractBreach of ContractWrongful TerminationJust Cause for DischargeAppellate ReviewRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationManagerial DiscretionCorporate ReorganizationTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2020-08-0214
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2022

Lee, Courtney v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Courtney Lee, reported neck and back injuries from handling a box during her employment at Federal Express Corporation. While the employer accepted the claim and provided initial medical treatment, the authorized physician ultimately released her at maximum medical improvement, stating no further treatment was necessary. However, the trial court found the injury compensable and ordered ongoing medical treatment with the treating physician. Following the employer's refusal to authorize additional treatment, the trial court granted the employee's motion, prompting the employer's appeal. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, emphasizing the prior judgment awarding future medical benefits and the employee's continued symptoms despite the physician's reliance on outdated diagnostic information.

Medical BenefitsFuture Medical TreatmentCompensable InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementObjective FindingsTrial Court OrderAppeals Board DecisionPhysician's OpinionBurden of ProofDiagnostic Testing
References
5
Case No. 2015-04-0039
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2016

Maples, Sallie A. v. Federal-Mogul Corporation

Sallie A. Maples, an employee, alleged gradual or cumulative trauma injuries to her hands and a resulting mental injury due to her work with Federal-Mogul Corporation. The employer denied the claim, asserting failure to provide timely notice and exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court ordered the employer to provide a panel of physicians for the employee's bilateral hand arthritis, deferring other benefit requests. The employer appealed, challenging the trial court's findings on notice and statute of limitations. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the employee provided timely notice after Dr. Weikert informed her of the work-relatedness of her condition, and that the claim was filed within the statute of limitations based on the "last day worked" rule.

Cumulative traumaHand arthritisOsteoarthritisStatute of limitationsNotice requirementLast day worked ruleInterlocutory appealMedical causationMental injury claimWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04680
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2022

Matter of Buffalo Teachers Fedn., Inc. v. New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding initiated by the Buffalo Teachers Federation, Inc. to challenge a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB found that the Federation engaged in an unlawful strike in violation of Civil Service Law § 210 (1) after 16 teachers from Public School 59 called in sick following a threatening incident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed PERB's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the Federation, through its agent, instigated and condoned a concerted work stoppage. The court dismissed the Federation's petition.

Unlawful StrikePublic Employment RelationsTeacher UnionTaylor LawConcerted Work StoppageSchool District DisputeAdministrative ReviewLabor Law ViolationCollective Bargaining UnitSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17,220 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