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. 13-13-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law
References
12
Case No. 13-06-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments. Appellants (Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C., collectively "Texas Treasure") contested the trial court's decision in favor of appellee (Christus Spohn Health System d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, "Christus"). The dispute arose from medical expenses incurred by a seaman, Judy Ann Lanado, employed by Texas Treasure, who suffered severe brain damage after surgery at Christus. Texas Treasure sought to avoid liability for the entire hospital bill and claimed equitable subrogation. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Texas Treasure's motion for summary judgment on its plea in intervention but reversed the granting of Christus's motions for summary judgment on its counterclaim and Texas Treasure's plea in intervention, remanding for further proceedings to determine negligence and attributable expenses.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSworn AccountVerified DenialDue ProcessEquitable SubrogationMaintenance and CureMaritime LawAlien CrewmanHospital Expenses
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System

Appellants Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. appealed summary judgments in favor of Christus Spohn Health System regarding medical expenses for Judy Ann Lanado, a seaman who suffered severe brain damage. Christus sought payment based on a sworn account, a guarantee, and maritime maintenance and cure. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Christus's counterclaim, finding an ineffective sworn denial and Christus's lack of standing for the guarantee. It also found a material fact issue regarding the reasonableness of medical charges under maintenance and cure. The court affirmed the denial of equitable subrogation to appellants but remanded for a determination of Christus's potential negligence affecting the medical bill.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentMaintenance and CureEquitable SubrogationSworn AccountDue ProcessAlien CrewmanMedical ExpensesTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
52
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 2020-03-0939
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2021

Day, Misti v. Great Salons of Knoxville, Inc.

Misti G. Day sustained two work-related injuries in 2018 and 2019. Her initial petition for benefits was involuntarily dismissed without prejudice in December 2019 due to failure to prosecute. The employer subsequently ceased voluntary workers' compensation benefits in March 2020. Employee Day filed a second petition for benefits on April 30, 2020, seeking additional medical treatment for her injuries. The trial court determined that the employee's second petition was timely filed and that she was likely to prevail regarding her request for additional medical benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing the second petition was untimely. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s determinations and remanded the case.

Timeliness of PetitionInvoluntary DismissalStatute of LimitationsMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInterlocutory AppealRemandRule 41.02Show Cause HearingWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goff v. Whitehall Central School District

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Whitehall Central School District and its employees. The dispute centers on whether "snow days" should be included in the calculation of guaranteed minimum payment days for part-time bus drivers (180 days) and cafeteria employees (170 days), even if the employees have already met those minimums through other workdays. The school district denied a grievance, arguing that snow days only count if needed to reach the minimum. Special Term initially reversed the board's decision, asserting that snow days should always be included. However, this appellate court reversed Special Term's judgment, ruling that the contract's intent was to count snow days only when necessary to fulfill the assured minimum number of payment days, and not to provide additional payment once the minimum was achieved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSnow DaysEmployment ContractWage DisputeSchool DistrictArticle 78 ProceedingContract InterpretationGrievanceAppellate ReviewEmployee Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

Trinity Universal Insurance Company v. Rebecca L. Day and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Trinity Universal Insurance Company appeals a judgment in favor of Rebecca L. Day and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC). The central issue is the timeliness of Trinity's Request for Review with the TWCC Appeals Panel, which impacts the trial court's jurisdiction. Rebecca Day sustained an injury in 1997 and subsequently applied for supplemental income benefits. A contested hearing in 2002 resulted in a decision that was mailed and placed in Trinity's Austin representative's box on July 24, 2002. Trinity filed its appeal with the TWCC Appeals Panel on August 15, 2002, which was deemed untimely by both the Appeals Panel and the trial court, leading to a finding of no jurisdiction. Trinity argued that under 28 TEX.ADMIN.CODE § 102.5(d), the deemed date of receipt was July 25, 2002, making their appeal timely. The appellate court concurred with Trinity's interpretation of the administrative code, thereby reversing the trial court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings.

JurisdictionTimeliness of AppealWorkers' CompensationAdministrative CodePlea to JurisdictionDeemed Receipt DateAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionRemandInsurance Carrier
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

McNamara v. Tourneau, Inc.

In this employment discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pro se plaintiff Charles McNamara and defendant Tourneau, Inc. reached a settlement during court-ordered mediation, signing a stipulation that included "Standard 21 day language." McNamara later refused to sign a formal agreement, alleging misrepresentation during mediation and asserting his right to revoke. Tourneau moved to enforce the settlement, arguing it was a binding contract. The Court found the stipulation to be a fully binding preliminary agreement. However, due to ambiguity in the "Standard 21 day language"—which pertained to the ADEA's 21-day consideration and 7-day revocation periods—and considering extrinsic evidence, including Tourneau's own proposed formal agreement, the Court concluded that McNamara retained the right to revoke prior to signing the formal contract. Consequently, Tourneau's motion to enforce the settlement was denied, and the case was reinstated, as McNamara's revocation was deemed timely.

Employment DiscriminationADA ClaimADEA WaiverSettlement EnforcementContract AmbiguityMediation ProgramPro Se PlaintiffRevocation RightsOWBPA ComplianceNew York Contract Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1971

Claim of Pollak v. Robert Day, Inc.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded disability benefits to a waiter under the Disability Benefits Law, finding him to be a 'shape-up worker' concurrently employed by Creative Caterers, Inc. and Robert Day, Inc. The claimant fell ill in February 1970 and was hospitalized, having worked for both employers in the same calendar week. Appellants challenged the board's finding of concurrent employment, citing the claimant's sporadic work record and arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that concurrent employment and eligibility are questions of fact solely within the board's province, and its conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence. The court clarified that regular employment by the *same* employers within the same calendar week is not necessary; only regular and customary employment by more than one covered employer within the same week is required.

disability benefitsconcurrent employmentshape-up workerWorkmen's Compensation LawArticle 9substantial evidencequestion of factapportionmentemployer liabilityappellate review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,312 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