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. ADJ7873127
Regular
May 08, 2012

MICHAEL DE SANTIAGO vs. ST, JOHN'S COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding 6% permanent disability for a lumbar spine injury. Applicant's counsel argued for 12% based on a stipulation classifying the applicant as a furniture mover (OGN 560), but the WCAB found the applicant's deposition testimony contradicted this, indicating an indoor salesperson role (OGN 212). The Board also issued a notice of intention to sanction applicant's attorney and law firm $400 for filing a petition with demonstrably false statements regarding trial necessity and misrepresented facts about the record.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityOccupational Group NumberStipulationsSanctionsLabor Code 5813Rule 10561Bad Faith Actions
References
4
Case No. E2011-02538-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Westgate Smoky Mountains at Gatlinburg v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development

This case addresses whether a time-share salesperson qualifies as a 'licensed real estate agent' under the Tennessee Employment Security Law's exclusion, impacting eligibility for unemployment benefits. Cynthia L. Vukich-Daw, a time-share salesperson for Westgate, initially received unemployment benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Tribunal and Board of Review. The chancery court reversed, deeming her ineligible, but the Court of Appeals then reversed the chancery court. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that time-share salespersons are indeed 'licensed real estate agents' and, therefore, Ms. Vukich-Daw was ineligible for unemployment compensation under the statutory exclusion.

Unemployment BenefitsTime-Share SalespersonIndependent ContractorLicensed Real Estate AgentEmployment Security LawStatutory Non-EmployeeCommission-Based PayWritten ContractFUTAJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. 05-10-00724-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2013

Poynor, Scott and Kimberly Yvonne Miles Poynor, Individually and as Next Friend for S.A.M., a Minor v. Classic Cars Limited Partnership, a Texas Limited Partnership

Appellants Scott Poynor, Kimberly Yvonne Miles Poynor, and Spenser Alexis Miles appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of appellees BMW of North America, LLC and BMW (US) Holding Corp. The case originated from injuries sustained by the appellants during a reckless test drive conducted by a salesperson from Classic BMW. Appellants contended that BMW of North America was vicariously liable for the salesperson's actions under respondeat superior and directly liable for negligent undertaking in training. The Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no agency relationship existed between BMW NA and Classic BMW or its salesperson regarding the specific activity causing injury. The court also found no evidence that BMW NA's training increased the risk of harm or that it undertook a duty owed by Classic BMW to the appellants. Additionally, the denial of appellants' motion for continuance was upheld.

NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentTest Drive AccidentAppellate ReviewDuty of CareProduct LiabilityAutomotive Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 1997

Claim of D'Accordo v. Spare Wheels & Car Shoppe

Claimant, an automobile salesperson, was injured in an accident while driving an employer's vehicle to the dealership to finalize a sale. The employer permitted salespersons to use demonstrator vehicles and conduct off-premises sales. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the accident occurred within the course of employment, a decision appealed by the employer and its carrier. The court affirmed, citing sufficient evidence that the claimant was engaged in work-related activity, including testimony that the employer encouraged taking vehicles to potential customers' homes and claimant's history of sales to relatives. The court concluded the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile SalesCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryDemonstrator VehicleOff-Premises SalesSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer PolicyWork-Related Activity
References
3
Case No. 06-Civ.-2268
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2008

In Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation

This consolidated class action lawsuit addresses whether pharmaceutical sales representatives (Reps) employed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (NPC) are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and corresponding New York and California state wage laws. Plaintiffs, current and former Reps, claim they qualify for overtime, while NPC argues they are exempt as outside salespersons or administrative employees. The Court granted summary judgment for NPC, finding that the Reps are exempt from overtime requirements as outside salespersons and administrative employees under both federal and state laws. The court also noted that some highly compensated employees would also be exempt, but did not need to fully rule on that point given the broader exemptions found.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionOutside Sales ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionPharmaceutical IndustryWage and Hour LawsClass ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. W. Mays, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

J. W. Mays, Inc. initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a previous order by the State Division of Human Rights. The original orders sustained a complaint against J. W. Mays, Inc. for sex discrimination and imposed a penalty. The State Division of Human Rights also cross-moved for enforcement of its order. The court found that J. W. Mays, Inc. failed to demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for transferring a female salesperson out of a department where all other salespersons were male. The court affirmed the prior order, dismissed J. W. Mays, Inc.'s proceeding, and granted the State Division's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the transfer was based on sex discrimination.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment LawGender BiasWorkplace TransferHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPrima Facie CaseUnlawful Discrimination
References
1
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. ADJ2273697 (ANA 0387273), ADJ810982 (ANA 0387274)
Regular
Jan 05, 2010

SHAWN BEYER vs. MAJOR INDOOR SOCCER LEAGUE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In Case No. ADJ2273697, the Appeals Board denied SCIF's petition for reconsideration as no specific arguments were raised. For Case No. ADJ810982, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded to the WCJ. This action was taken because a proposed correction of "body parts injured" from the extremities to the cervical spine, psyche, and head was deemed a substantive change, not a clerical error. The Board noted that this substantive change could raise new issues requiring further consideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardShawn BeyerMajor Indoor Soccer LeagueState Compensation Insurance Fundpetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentfuture medical treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1992

Claim of Pikcilingis v. Macy's

Claimant, a salesperson, sustained compensable injuries to both knees in 1985, resulting in a permanent partial disability. Despite this, she returned to work with her employer, where her duties were modified to accommodate her condition. She subsequently retired in July 1990 without medical advice or consultation from her doctor. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that she had voluntarily removed herself from the labor market, leading to the denial of her claim for benefits. This decision was later affirmed on appeal.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPermanent Partial DisabilityModified DutiesRetirementMedical ConsultationAppellate ReviewClaim DenialBoard DecisionKnee Injuries
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Bell

The claimant, a salesperson, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. After a disciplinary action for watching football during work, the claimant resigned in protest. Although he later attempted to rescind his resignation, the employer refused to reinstate him. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision, finding that quitting due to disciplinary measures does not constitute good cause and that continuing work was available, was affirmed. The court upheld the Board's resolution of credibility issues against the claimant.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary LeaveGood CauseDisciplinary ActionResignationWorkplace ConductAppellate ReviewCredibility DisputeBenefits DisqualificationEmployer Refusal to Reinstate
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 46 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