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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lozano v. H.D. Industries, Inc.

Pablo A. Lozano, a City of El Paso employee, sued H.D. Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of a "Pro-Patch Pothole Patcher," for severe leg injuries sustained while cleaning hardened sand from the machine's bind. Lozano's claims included products liability in negligence and strict liability, alleging design and marketing defects due to a lack of safety mechanisms and inadequate warnings. The jury found no defect in design or marketing and no negligence by H.D. Industries, instead assigning 25% responsibility to Lozano and 75% to the City of El Paso. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that the inclusion of the City in the jury charge was harmless error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectMarketing DefectWarning LabelsJury Charge ErrorComparative ResponsibilityWorkers CompensationAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Naylor Industries, Inc.

Mary Rodriguez sued Naylor Industries for loss of consortium after her husband, Juan, was severely injured in a work-related truck accident. Juan had reported the truck's dangerously worn tires to his supervisor, David Cameron, who dismissively ordered him to drive it. After a front tire blew out, another supervisor, Nolan Wallace, instructed Juan to replace it with a rear tire and continue, despite safety and legal concerns. Subsequently, a rear tire blew, causing the truck to flip and injure Juan. The lower courts granted summary judgment for Naylor, ruling no intentional tort occurred. The Supreme Court reversed, finding sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Naylor's intentional conduct, thereby precluding summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortLoss of ConsortiumSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityUnsafe Work ConditionsTruck AccidentGross NegligenceFact QuestionReversal
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gaines v. Excel Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs, injured at their employer's plant, sought damages from Excel Industries, Inc., the parent company, after other defendants were dismissed or granted summary judgment. Their main claim was that Excel Industries, Inc. negligently failed to ensure safety measures after undertaking safety inspections, applying the "Good Samaritan" doctrine from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no legal duty, the product liability statute of repose, and workers' compensation immunity. The Court denied summary judgment on the negligence claim, affirming a potential duty under § 324A, but granted it for claims against the defendant as a 'manufacturer' under the statute of repose. The crucial issue of workers' compensation immunity for the parent corporation was reserved for trial, pending further factual development.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityParent Corporation LiabilitySubsidiary ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionRestatement (Second) of Torts Section 324AGood Samaritan DoctrineProducts Liability Statute of ReposeCorporate Veil PiercingNegligence ClaimsSafety Inspections
References
47
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1988

Evans v. Chelsea Industrial Park, Inc.

Mark Evans, a construction worker for Quality Steel Buildings, Inc., was injured after falling from a ladder while attempting to cut support cables on premises owned by Chelsea Industrial Park, Inc. and leased by Paraflex Industries, Inc. Evans moved for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging negligence due to the absence of safety lines or nets. The Supreme Court, Orange County, denied his motion, citing material issues of fact regarding the height of the plaintiff's work, the ladder's height, and its placement. The defendants, Chelsea Industrial Park, Inc. and Paraflex Industries, Inc., also cross-moved for summary judgment against the third-party defendant Quality Steel Buildings, Inc., which was also denied. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the factual disputes justified the denial of summary judgment for all parties involved.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLabor Law 240(1)Premises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate DecisionMaterial Issues of FactNegligence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,904 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