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

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1979

Gross Veneer Co. v. American Mutual Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term in St. Lawrence County, which granted plaintiff, Gross Veneer Company, Inc., partial summary judgment. The dispute arose from a manufacturer’s blanket crime policy issued by defendant, American Mutual Insurance Companies, insuring against employee dishonesty. Plaintiff sought to recover funds embezzled by Chester Shockley, whom it alleged was an employee. The central issue was whether Shockley met the policy’s three-pronged definition of an 'employee,' which required compensation by the insured, the insured's right to govern and direct, and not being a broker or agent. The appellate court found that Special Term improperly relied on unsupported explanations regarding Shockley's compensation by Litchfield Park Corporation and failed to address whether this arrangement affected plaintiff's right to control Shockley or if Shockley acted as plaintiff's agent. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

employee dishonestyinsurance policysummary judgmentcontract interpretationemployment definitionappellate reviewcompensationright to controlcorporate relationsembezzlement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. Nashville Gas Co.

Plaintiffs John M. Gross and Wayne Adair, employees of South Central Bell Telephone Company, sustained severe burns when a fire erupted in a manhole they were working in. They alleged the fire was caused by leaking natural gas from lines maintained by the defendant, Nashville Gas Company, claiming negligence and strict liability. The trial in Davidson County, Tennessee, in January 1979, resulted in a jury finding both parties negligent and a verdict in favor of Nashville Gas Company, leading to the dismissal of the case. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions on remote contributory negligence, strict liability, duty of care, gross negligence, punitive damages, and urging the judicial adoption of comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and declined to judicially adopt comparative negligence, suggesting it is a legislative matter. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or strict liability against the gas company.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceGas LeakManhole FireWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsStrict Liability
References
26
Case No. 2020-06-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

De Rosa, Debra v. I & MJ Gross Co.

Debra De Rosa, an employee of I & MJ Gross Co., injured her wrist and subsequently sought additional treatment with a new doctor. She contended that the carrier, Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., failed to offer a panel of physicians or inform her of her right to choose from a list of three doctors. However, I & MJ Gross Co. denied these allegations, asserting that it had twice fulfilled its statutory obligation to offer a physician panel. The Court found the employer's testimony credible regarding the panel offer and noted that Ms. De Rosa accepted treatment from Dr. John Weaver. Dr. Weaver ultimately placed her at maximum medical improvement and stated no further treatment was necessary, leading the Court to deny Ms. De Rosa’s request for additional medical care.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician PanelCredibility DeterminationWrist InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory ObligationEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Communications Workers v. SBC Disability Income Plan

This case addresses defendants' motions to dismiss the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) as a party-plaintiff. CWA and Rene Anzaldua initiated the lawsuit to challenge the denial of Mr. Anzaldua's long-term disability benefits under the SBC Disability Income Plan, citing violations of the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Defendants argued that CWA lacked standing, as ERISA limits plaintiffs to 'participants,' 'beneficiaries,' or 'fiduciaries,' none of which apply to CWA. The court analyzed statutory definitions and rejected CWA's claims of derivative or associational standing, highlighting the necessity of individual member participation for benefit determination. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Anzaldua adequately represented the union's interests. Consequently, the motions to dismiss CWA as a party-plaintiff were granted.

ERISAStanding to SueLabor UnionsDisability BenefitsMotion to DismissStatutory ConstructionEmployee BenefitsLong-Term DisabilityAssociational StandingFederal Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 02A01-9507-CH-00153
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1996

Pamela Lemoine Ford v. Michael Burke Ford

This is a post-divorce proceeding where Pamela Ford (wife) appealed the trial court's decision regarding child support and alimony modification. The wife argued that the husband's trust principal withdrawals should be considered gross income and that the court erred in not imputing income to him due to voluntary unemployment. She also sought an increase in alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of alimony increase, but reversed the trial court's holding on trust principal as gross income and the failure to impute income for voluntary unemployment, remanding the case for further proceedings. Costs on appeal were taxed to the husband, who was also ordered to pay half of the wife's attorney's fees for the appeal.

Post-divorceChild Support ModificationAlimony ModificationTrust PrincipalGross IncomeVoluntary UnemploymentImputed IncomeAppellate ReviewMarital Dissolution AgreementTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Liz Gross sued her employer, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). NBC moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, leading to the dismissal of Gross's claims. The court found many of Gross's claims to be time-barred, rejecting the application of the "continuing violation doctrine." For the timely claims, Gross failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, as she could not provide evidence of similarly situated male comparators for pay or demonstrate an adverse employment action or discriminatory animus. NBC successfully articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, which Gross did not prove to be pretextual.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawPay DisparityTimeliness of ClaimsContinuing Violation DoctrinePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,819 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