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

Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp.

This case addresses whether "cold-shoulder treatment" based on race or gender can constitute unlawful harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, and the doctrine of constructive discharge. Plaintiff Brenda Campbell sued Florida Steel Corporation for sexual and racial harassment, which the employer initially remedied. Campbell then alleged "cold-shoulder treatment" and constructive discharge, a claim upheld by the trial court but reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that while non-explicit conduct can be discriminatory, Florida Steel took reasonable remedial action given Campbell's failure to identify the perpetrators. The Court further clarified that for constructive discharge, conditions must be so intolerable that a reasonable person would resign, and found the evidence did not support Campbell's claim.

DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeRacial HarassmentSexual HarassmentEmployer LiabilityRemedial ActionCold-Shoulder TreatmentTitle VIITennessee Human Rights Act
References
42
Case No. 03-15-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

Herbert Rolnick v. Sight's My Line, Inc., a Florida Corporation Stewart Lantz Riggs, Aleshire & Ray Blazier, Christensen, Bigelow & Vir, P.C. And Adams & Graham

This document is an appellant's reply brief in an interlocutory appeal from a Texas judicial district court. The appellant, Herbert Rolnick, challenges the trial court's denial of his special appearance, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts with Texas. Rolnick asserts that his contacts were made solely in a representative capacity for his Florida-based client and that the appellees' 'minimum contacts' analysis is flawed, relying on superseded legal principles and misattributing actions. He emphasizes that his legal services were performed in Florida and did not constitute purposeful availment of Texas laws. The brief also addresses and refutes arguments regarding waiver and agency theory put forth by the appellees.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTexas Long-Arm StatuteWalden v. FioreChoice of LawAgency TheoryLegal Malpractice
References
26
Case No. 05-14-00832-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Culinaire of Florida, Inc. v. FelCor/CSS Holdings, LP

Culinaire of Florida, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial after a default judgment was granted in favor of FelCor/CSS Holdings, LP. Culinaire argued that its failure to appear was not intentional, but rather a result of an accidental communication breakdown, that it possessed a meritorious defense concerning the interpretation of an indemnification agreement, and that a new trial would not cause undue prejudice. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas, applied the three-element Craddock test. The court concluded that Culinaire satisfied all three elements, determining that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for a new trial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestIndemnification AgreementContract InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Court of AppealsAppellate ProcedureCommunication BreakdownMeritorious Defense
References
20
Case No. 10-18-00383-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2020

Florida Metal Products, Inc. and FLAMCO of Texas, Inc. v. Danny Kreder

Danny Kreder sued Florida Metal Products, Inc. and FLAMCO of Texas, Inc. for workers' compensation retaliation after he was terminated following a work injury and subsequent workers' compensation claim. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals reviewed the TCPA motion de novo. The court found that Kreder's claims were based on the appellants' exercise of free speech concerning workplace safety and economic health, thus meeting the first step of the TCPA analysis. However, the court concluded that Kreder failed to provide clear and specific evidence to establish a causal link between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, specifically regarding Marecle's knowledge of the claim, expression of negative attitude, failure to adhere to company policies, discriminatory treatment, or the falsity of the stated reason for discharge. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to grant the motion to dismiss.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationTexas Citizens Participation ActMotion to DismissEmployment TerminationCausal LinkWorkplace SafetyEconomic ConcernsPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swindell v. Florida East Coast Railway Co.

Plaintiff Edward LeRoy Swindell, a New York resident, sued Florida East Coast Railway for personal injuries due to asbestos exposure while working for the defendant in Florida between 1939 and 1952. The defendant, a Florida corporation with its headquarters in St. Augustine, Florida, moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction in New York. The court examined New York Civil Practice Law §§ 301 and 302, concluding that the defendant's contacts with New York did not constitute "doing business" or "transacting business" sufficiently related to the cause of action. The court also rejected the argument that the injury occurred in New York because emotional distress manifested there. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted, and the case was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate forum.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLong-Arm StatuteNew York Civil Practice LawCPLR 301CPLR 302Doing BusinessTransacting BusinessTortious ActDue Process
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Tarpon Cove, Ltd. & Taylor Woodrow Blitman Property Corp. of Florida

Tarpon, a Florida property owner, entered a management and development agreement with Taylor, which included a New York arbitration clause. After Tarpon unilaterally terminated the agreement, a dispute arose over termination and reimbursement costs. Tarpon initiated an action in Florida, prompting Taylor to demand arbitration for both parties' claims. Special Term initially granted Tarpon's motion to stay arbitration, ruling the clause was nullified by termination. The appellate court reversed, holding that a unilateral termination does not extinguish a broad arbitration clause and that issues regarding the agreement's termination and alleged breaches are matters for arbitration. The court also ordered a stay of the related Florida action pending arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract TerminationStay of ArbitrationCompelling ArbitrationCross-MotionFlorida LitigationNew York LawUnilateral TerminationBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 12cv3536, 12cv6285, 13cv3123
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2014

In re Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc.

Claimant Jose Ayala sustained injuries after falling from a barge on the Hudson River, alleging negligence by a tugboat. Petitioners Bridge Construction Services of Florida, Inc., Hughes Brothers, Inc., and Tutor Perini Corp., owners and charterers of the vessels, filed for exoneration or limitation of liability. Jose and Teresa Ayala filed claims for negligence and New York Labor Law violations. The court denied summary judgment for Hughes and Tutor Perini, citing material facts disputes regarding seaworthiness and negligence. Bridge's motion was partially granted, dismissing Teresa Ayala's loss of consortium claim, but denied regarding exoneration. New York Labor Law claims against TriState Electric Contracting, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of LiabilityExonerationJones ActSeaman StatusUnseaworthinessNegligenceSummary JudgmentBarge Accident
References
83
Case No. ADJ10779733
Regular
Feb 26, 2020

THOMAS WILSON vs. FLORIDA MARLINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim where the central issue is whether California jurisdiction is precluded by Labor Code sections 3600.5(c) and (d) concerning out-of-state athletes. The Board found these exemptions inapplicable because the applicant had multiple California contracts of hire during his cumulative trauma injury period, aligning with California's general jurisdictional rules. The Board interpreted the intent of the statutory amendments to be the limitation of claims by out-of-state athletes with minimal California contacts, not those with established hire in the state. Therefore, the applicant's claim may proceed in California.

Labor Code Section 3600.5Professional Athlete ExceptionCumulative TraumaContract of HireJurisdictionOut-of-State EmployersCalifornia-Based TeamDuty DaysTemporary WorkLegislative Intent
References
13
Case No. ADJ9223382
Regular
Jul 06, 2015

MICHAEL NEU vs. LOS ANGELES DODGERS, OAKLAND ATHLETICS, FLORIDA MARLINS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Los Angeles Dodgers' petition for reconsideration, affirming an earlier award for the applicant. The Board found the Dodgers, as a California-based team, were not exempt from notice requirements regarding workers' compensation rights. Furthermore, the statute of limitations was tolled because the Dodgers failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his rights more than one year before filing his claim. Consequently, the applicant's claim for industrial injury to his neck and right shoulder was upheld.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMichael NeuLos Angeles DodgersOakland AthleticsFlorida MarlinsAce American Insurance CompanyADJ9223382industrial injuryneckright shoulder
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1985

Claim of Lupoli v. Serve-Queen, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to the widow of Angelo Lupoli. Lupoli, a co-founder of a New York corporation, relocated to Florida to oversee the construction of a new plant for a Florida corporation, with plans to cease New York operations. He died of a heart attack while working at the Florida construction site. His widow filed claims in both Florida (settled) and New York. The New York Board denied jurisdiction, finding insufficient contacts with New York, as Lupoli had moved with no intention of returning, and the business had effectively moved to Florida. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the employment was located in Florida, thus precluding New York's jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionOut-of-State EmploymentDeath BenefitsEmployment SitusNew York LawFloridaCorporate RelocationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 78 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