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
Aug 29, 2003

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Cram Roofing Company appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Dennis Parker in a libel suit. Parker sued Cram Roofing and its president, Gary Cram, after Cram Roofing's attorney sent letters accusing Parker of "voluntarily terminating" his employment and engaging in "illegal activities" by violating a non-competition agreement. The jury found Cram Roofing libeled Parker and awarded him $50,000 for mental anguish. On appeal, Cram Roofing challenged the statute of limitations, the defamatory nature of the statements, the substantial truth of "illegal activities," and the handling of the non-competition agreement's validity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Parker's libel claim was not time-barred and that the jury reasonably found Cram Roofing's statement about "illegal activities" was defamatory and not substantially true.

LibelDefamationNon-competition agreementBreach of contractStatute of limitationsRelation back doctrineMental anguishCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJury verdictSubstantial truth
References
18
Case No. M2012-02423-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff Captain Larry D. Williams was discharged by the City of Burns after reporting his police chief, Jerry D. Sumerour, Jr., for pressuring him into illegally fixing a traffic ticket for the chief's stepson. The defendant municipality claimed Williams was terminated for violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that disciplining Williams for reporting illegal activity to the mayor was an admission of retaliatory motive and that other reasons for termination were pretextual. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding Williams was discharged solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in and remain silent about illegal activities under the Tennessee Public Protection Act.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionIllegal Ticket FixingChain of Command ViolationPolice Officer TerminationEmployment At-WillPublic Policy ExceptionPretext for RetaliationCausation in Employment LawMunicipal Employment
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case centers on an action brought by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and its youth arm, the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), against the United States and various government officials. The plaintiffs alleged pervasive illegal activities by the FBI and other federal agencies, including systematic harassment, infiltration, disruption, and surveillance. The court found that the FBI engaged in unconstitutional disruption activities and surreptitious entries, and improperly used informants to gather private information on lawful political activities. As a result, the SWP and YSA were awarded $264,000 in damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act. However, claims for electronic surveillance damages and damages sought by individual plaintiffs were dismissed, and most requests for broad declaratory and injunctive relief were denied, except for an injunction ordering the segregation and limited dissemination of illegally obtained government documents.

FBI MisconductGovernment SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsCivil Rights LitigationFederal Tort Claims ActInfiltrationDisruption ProgramsSurreptitious EntriesInformants
References
141
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 04-01-00723-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2003

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Cram Roofing Company appealed the trial court's judgment against it in Dennis Parker's libel suit. The core of the dispute was a letter sent by Cram Roofing's attorney accusing Parker of 'voluntarily terminating' employment and engaging in 'illegal activities' after Parker started a competing business. The appellate court denied Cram Roofing's motion for rehearing en banc and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that while 'voluntarily terminated' was not defamatory, the phrase 'illegal activities' could be interpreted as criminal conduct by an average person and was not substantially true. The jury's award of $50,000 for mental anguish damages to Parker was also upheld.

LibelDefamationStatute of LimitationsSubstantial TruthMental AnguishNon-Compete AgreementEmployment LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The plaintiff sued his former employer, Millennium Laboratories, alleging wrongful termination based on whistleblower retaliation, violation of public policy, and age discrimination under Tennessee law. The plaintiff claimed he was discharged for attempting to report illegal LSA activities, for potential testimony in a Colorado lawsuit, and due to his age. Millennium contended the termination was solely due to the plaintiff's poor job performance and dishonesty, citing multiple customer complaints and an instance of dishonesty. The Court granted Millennium's motion for summary judgment, concluding the plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case or show pretext for any of his claims, as he did not sufficiently report illegal activities, there was no evidence Millennium impeded his testimony, and age was not the 'but for' cause of termination.

Age DiscriminationWhistleblower RetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTennessee Public Protection ActTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawPublic Policy ViolationJob PerformancePretext Argument
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1990

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Richard Winters, an at-will employee, was terminated by Houston Chronicle Publishing Company after he internally reported alleged illegal activities by fellow employees, including false subscriber reporting, inventory theft, and a kickback scheme. He subsequently filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit. The trial court initially granted summary judgment against Winters, a decision upheld by the court of appeals, on the grounds that his pleadings did not establish a cause of action. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, declining to establish a new common law exception to the state's long-standing at-will employment doctrine for private employees who report illegal activities to management. The Court noted that Winters' situation did not align with existing statutory protections or prior judicial exceptions.

Wrongful dischargeAt-will employmentWhistleblowerReporting illegal activitiesSummary judgmentTexas employment lawCommon law exceptionsStatutory exceptionsPublic policy exceptionEmployee rights
References
29
Case No. W2013-00535-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Charles Haynes' retaliatory discharge claims against Formac Stables, Inc. Haynes alleged he was fired for complaining to the owner about a forced, improper medical treatment involving horse sutures for a head injury. The central issue was whether an employee must report illegal activity to someone other than the wrongdoer to qualify as a whistleblower, even if the wrongdoer is the manager or owner. The Court held that to qualify as a whistleblower, an employee must report illegal activity to an entity other than the wrongdoer, which may necessitate reporting to an outside agency in situations where the wrongdoer holds the highest authority within the company. Consequently, as Haynes reported solely to Formac's owner, he did not satisfy the reporting requirement for a whistleblower claim. The Court overruled prior conflicting precedents.

WhistleblowerRetaliatory DischargeEmployment-at-WillInternal ReportingPublic PolicyWrongdoerTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationPublic Protection ActEmployee Rights
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,206 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