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. 2016-02-0297
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Lawson, Linda V. HDK Industries, Inc.

Employee Linda Lawson's workers' compensation claim for a right leg and ankle injury was denied by her employer, HDK Industries, Inc., after a drug test showed positive for oxycodone, leading to her termination. Lawson asserted the drug test results were incorrect and caused by poppy seeds. Following a delayed filing of a dispute certification notice, the trial court issued a show cause order for Lawson's failure to request a hearing. Despite the employer's motion to dismiss, the trial court declined, citing the delayed filing of the dispute certification notice with the clerk and an ambiguity between statutory and regulatory deadlines for requesting a hearing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the case.

Appeal DecisionMotion to DismissShow Cause HearingDrug Test ResultsIntoxication DefenseStatutory AmbiguityRegulatory ConflictAbuse of DiscretionProcedural DismissalDispute Certification
References
2
Case No. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC d/b/a Medical Center of Arlington (the Hospital). The case originated from the Hospital's alleged failure to disclose an employee's positive drug and alcohol test results to Shioleno after an on-the-job injury. Shioleno contended that this omission led to increased workers' compensation premiums and expenses in unemployment benefit disputes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Shioleno failed to provide a valid authorization for the disclosure of medical information. Consequently, the Hospital had no legal duty to disclose the results and could not be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, or Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations.

Summary JudgmentMedical RecordsDisclosure AuthorizationHealth & Safety CodeNegligenceBreach of ContractDTPADrug TestingAlcohol TestingEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. 14-08-00795-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2010

Transcontinental Insurance Company, as Subrogee of the Estate of Reabon Jackson, Jr., Reabon Drusila Jackson (A Minor), Nettie Adams and Donald Robinson v. Briggs Equipment Trust and Genie Industries, Inc.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed three summary judgments in a case involving wrongful-death and subrogation claims. Appellants Transcontinental Insurance Company and SelenEr Love sued Briggs Equipment Trust and Genie Industries, Inc. after a fatal industrial accident. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Love's claims due to procedural default. However, it reversed and remanded Transcontinental's claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence, product defect, and causation by the defendants, as well as Briggs's liability as a nonmanufacturing seller. The court also clarified that the Texas Family Code's Uniform Parentage Act does not strictly govern paternity determinations in wrongful-death actions, relying on a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for filial relationships. An unopposed motion to unseal paternity test results was granted.

Product LiabilityWrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDesign DefectCausationPaternityGenetic Testing
References
24
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

Faulk Management Services v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Faulk Management Services initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it had a duty to indemnify and defend Lufkin Industries, Inc. under a written agreement. This arose from an underlying personal injury lawsuit filed by Alta V. Harrison, a Faulk employee, against Lufkin for an on-the-job injury. The trial court granted Lufkin's motion for summary judgment, compelling Faulk to indemnify and defend. Faulk appealed, arguing the agreement failed the express negligence test and the workers' compensation bar. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the contract's terms sufficiently met both legal requirements.

IndemnityDeclaratory JudgmentExpress Negligence RuleWorkers Compensation BarContract InterpretationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceThird-Party Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. v. New York State Board of Industrial Appeals

The case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a nationwide company, which administers workers’ compensation and general liability claims, against the State Board of Industrial Appeals. The company challenged a Department of Labor determination, later modified by the Board, that its claims examiners were not exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. The core issue was whether the examiners qualified for an administrative capacity exemption under FLSA. Applying the "short test" and the "production/administrative dichotomy," the court concluded that the examiners were "production workers" as their primary duty was to produce the services the employer offered. Consequently, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination, confirmed the Board's decision, and dismissed the petition.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionAdministrative CapacityClaims ExaminersLabor Law ViolationCPLR Article 78Production WorkersState Board of Industrial AppealsWage and Hour DisputesDiscretion and Independent Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Del Industrial, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund and DEL Industrial, Inc. regarding workers' compensation insurance premiums for employees leased by DEL from Administrative Resources, Ltd. (ARL). ARL did not provide coverage for its leased employees. The Fund argued that DEL's policy should cover these workers based on the "coemployer" provision of the Staff Leasing Services Act (SLSA). The trial court initially sided with the Fund, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, holding that under the SLSA, the staff leasing company (ARL) has the exclusive right to elect or deny workers' compensation coverage for leased employees. The court clarified that the "coemployer" status only pertains to sharing the consequences of the staff leasing company's election, and the SLSA supersedes the common law right-of-control test for determining employer status in such situations. Consequently, DEL was not liable for the premiums for the leased workers.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceStaff Leasing Services ActCoemployer RelationshipLeased EmployeesInsurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationRight-of-Control TestEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,277 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