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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. 16-CA-12241
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1985

Dunn v. Pilgrim Industries, Inc.

The Regional Director of Region Sixteen of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Michael Dunn, filed a verified petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Pilgrim Industries, Inc. The petition alleged that Pilgrim Industries engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 540, following its acquisition of Pluss-Tex Poultry Company, and by unilaterally implementing changes to employee benefits and work shifts. The court found reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. However, it declined to issue a mandatory bargaining order, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the Union that could not be remedied by a final Board order. The court instead granted a prohibitory injunction, restraining Pilgrim Industries from actions intended to erode employee support or membership in the Union and from unlawfully dissipating Union strength, while explicitly allowing the previously instituted pay increase, pension plan, and second work shift to remain. The ultimate resolution of successor employer status and bargaining duty was deferred to the NLRB.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j) InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeSuccessor EmployerDuty to BargainUnilateral ChangesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeTemporary InjunctionProhibitory Injunction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandas Industries, Inc. v. Employers Fire Insurance Co.

Employers Fire Insurance Company, the appellee, sued Bandas Industries, Inc., the appellant, in Bell County district court to recover $36,354.00 in retrospective premiums on two insurance policies (worker’s compensation and comprehensive general liability). The policies, effective from June 1975 to June 1976, included a retrospective premium endorsement allowing for adjustment based on loss experience. Bandas Industries, Inc. argued the retrospective premium provision was unconscionable and counterclaimed for $100,000.00 due to policy cancellation. The district court ruled in favor of Employers Fire Insurance Company, finding the contract conscionable and denying the counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling Bandas Industries, Inc.'s points of error regarding unconscionability, parol evidence, policy cancellability, and the existence of a safety program.

Workers' compensationRetrospective premiumInsurance contractUnconscionabilityContract cancellationParol evidenceFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewJudgment affirmed
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,787 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