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. 01-08-01027-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2010

Diana G. Offord, as Guardian of the Estate of Winter Gordon, Jr., A/K/A Winter Gordon Sr. v. West Houston Trees, L.L.P.

This case concerns Diana G. Offord's appeal, as guardian of Winter Gordon, Jr., seeking to overturn a default judgment against Gordon via a bill of review. Offord argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against her, claiming Gordon was not properly served and was mentally incompetent during the original proceedings. The Court of Appeals, First District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found no evidence to dispute that Gordon was served with the petition and trial notice. Furthermore, Offord's evidence of Gordon's mental incapacity was deemed too remote in time to establish incompetence at the time of service, failing to overcome the legal presumption of competence.

Bill of ReviewSummary JudgmentDue ProcessMental IncapacityService of ProcessDefault JudgmentGuardianshipAppellate ReviewTexas LawEvidence Admissibility
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1992

Gordon v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

Shari Shapiro Gordon, an Orthodox Jewish woman, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against MCI Telecommunications Corp. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Gordon alleged that MCI refused to hire her for a Staff Assistant position due to her need to leave work early on Fridays during the fall and winter for Sabbath observance. MCI moved for summary judgment, contending that Gordon failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating her religious practices would impose an undue hardship. The court denied MCI's motion, finding that Gordon had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude a prima facie case of discrimination. Furthermore, MCI's claims of undue hardship were deemed speculative, lacking concrete evidence regarding actual operational disruptions or financial burdens. The case will proceed to trial.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSabbath ObservanceUndue HardshipReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseFederal District Court
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Winpisinger

Plaintiffs, members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), including Gordon, Healy, Boyes, and Warfield, were disciplined by the union for alleged activities endangering its welfare after publishing a newsletter. After exhausting internal union appeals, they sued IAM and its International President, William Winpisinger, alleging violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing claims were time-barred and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, while plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court denied defendants' motion regarding the statute of limitations and subject matter jurisdiction, finding plaintiffs had standing. However, the court dismissed LMRA claims seeking money damages against Winpisinger individually but allowed equitable relief claims to stand. Plaintiffs' cross-motions for summary judgment were also denied, concluding that the issue of whether their actions constituted a chargeable offense required a full presentation of facts.

Labor LawUnion DisciplineLMRDALMRAStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionFreedom of SpeechInternal Union RemediesSummary JudgmentIndividual Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

the City of Watauga v. Russell Gordon

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an arrestee's lawsuit against a city for injuries caused by police officers' use of handcuffs states a battery or negligence claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Russell Gordon sued the City of Watauga, alleging negligent use of property. The City asserted governmental immunity under the intentional-tort exception. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of the immunity plea, concluding it was a negligence claim. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that claims of excessive force during a lawful arrest, even when an injury is unintended, arise out of a battery (an intentional tort), for which governmental immunity has not been waived. Consequently, the case was dismissed.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional TortBatteryNegligenceExcessive ForceArrestHandcuffsSovereign ImmunityCivil Procedure
References
36
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04681
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Fidler v. Gordon-Herricks Corp.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning a personal injury action filed by Robert Fidler against Gordon-Herricks Corp. and F. Pinheiro Contractor Corp. Fidler appealed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant F. Pinheiro Contractor Corp. The Supreme Court had previously granted summary judgment to other defendants, citing the "law of the case" doctrine for Pinheiro. The Appellate Division found the "law of the case" doctrine inapplicable to Pinheiro, as the prior dismissals were based on grounds specific to the other defendants. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Pinheiro, concluding that Pinheiro, as a third-party contractor, owed no duty to the plaintiff and did not "launch a force or instrument of harm."

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionLaw of the Case DoctrineThird-Party ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty (Tort Law)Workers' CompensationNassau CountyLoading Dock Ramp
References
11
Case No. 06-14-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2014

Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. v. Gordon Ray Bonner

Gordon Bonner was injured in a construction accident while working for Premier Constructors, involving a crane lift by Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. Bonner sued Joyce Crane, Self Concrete, and Carothers Construction. Self Concrete and Carothers Construction settled for $3.1 million. The jury found Bonner 33% at fault, his employer Premier (a responsible third party) 33% at fault, and Joyce Crane 34% at fault, awarding $7 million in damages. The trial court's amended judgment awarded Bonner over $2 million against Joyce Crane after subtracting settlements and Bonner's comparative fault. Joyce Crane is appealing this judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in calculating the recoverable damages by not properly accounting for the responsible third party's fault and by not using the declining-principal formula for prejudgment interest, which should result in a take-nothing judgment for Bonner.

Comparative faultPrejudgment interestSettlement creditsResponsible third partyNegligenceConstruction accidentAppellate procedureStatutory interpretationDamages calculationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
17
Case No. C.A. No. 02A01-9607-CV-00154
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1997

Gordon Burks v. Belz-Wilson Properties

Gordon Burks was paralyzed after attempting a backflip into a gymnastics pit at the Wimbleton Sportsplex during a Crye-Leike Olympics event in Memphis. He had signed a release form the day before, which he did not read. Burks sued Belz-Wilson Properties and other related entities, alleging negligence for unsafe premises. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the release. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision, finding that while the defendants were the true parties to the release through their trade name, the release's language concerning 'participation in these events' was ambiguous and did not cover Burks' injury, which occurred during an activity unrelated to a scheduled event.

NegligenceRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySpinal InjurySportsplexTrade NameContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
13
Case No. 2016-01-0587
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2017

Gordon, Steve v. Jake Marshall, LLC

Steven Gordon, a sheet metal laborer, alleged vision, dental, and mental injuries after striking his head on a metal beam while working for Jake Marshall, LLC. Although a compensable head injury and related neck pain were undisputed, Jake Marshall, LLC disputed responsibility for unauthorized medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for the other alleged injuries. The Court found that Mr. Gordon failed to establish that these vision, dental, and mental injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Dr. Kundu, the neurologist, specifically stated that Mr. Gordon's vision condition was unrelated to the work injury. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Gordon's request for medical and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryVision InjuryDental InjuryMental InjuryCausationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical TreatmentExpedited HearingDenial of Benefits
References
2
Case No. NO. 03-13-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O. v. David Mattax, Texas Commissioner of Insurance Ryan Brannan, Commissioner of Workers' Compensation And Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O., appealed an administrative penalty of $15,000 and an order to attend an educational course for violating reporting and record-keeping requirements as a 'designated doctor' with the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The audit focused on the timely submission and electronic transmission of DWC Form-69s. McWatt argued that the ALJ and Commissioner lacked authority, retroactively applied rules, misinterpreted Rule 130.1 by holding him responsible for his employer Concentra's failures, and arbitrarily assessed penalties. The court found that the Division had proper authority for the audit and that Rule 130.1 held McWatt ultimately responsible for compliance, irrespective of his employer's role in filing. Consequently, the trial court's judgment affirming the ALJ's monetary penalty and the Commissioner's non-monetary sanction was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewReporting RequirementsRecord KeepingAdministrative PenaltiesMedical EvaluationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingDesignated Doctor
References
17
Case No. ADJ2203540
Regular
Jan 11, 2012

GORDON ANTHONY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the Applicant, Gordon Anthony. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the original decision dated October 18, 2011. Specifically, the Board amended the decision to change the applicant's name from "ANTHONY GORDON" to "GORDON ANTHONY" in multiple locations of the findings and order. Otherwise, the Board affirmed the original decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationClerical ErrorFindings of FactOrderOpinion on DecisionApplicantDefendantSelf-InsuredAmended Decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 99 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