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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. 01-03-01003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2005

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Julio Mora, an employee of Hemco Industries, Inc., appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Hemco during a bench trial. Mora filed a negligence action after sustaining a herniated disc injury while lifting equipment at work. The appellate issues included whether Mora presented sufficient evidence of medical causation, whether Hemco judicially admitted causation, and if the trial court erred in denying Mora's motion to re-open for additional evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mora failed to establish medical causation with expert testimony and did not show due diligence in presenting additional evidence.

NegligenceMedical CausationDirected VerdictBench TrialJudicial AdmissionsMotion to ReopenHerniated DiscEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDue Diligence
References
25
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

James Glen Osborne filed a worker's compensation action against Burlington Industries, Inc. for a back injury sustained on July 10, 1980, while working as a "doffer packer." The trial court found the injury to be gradual, with timely notice and the action filed within the statute of limitations, awarding temporary total and permanent partial disability. Burlington Industries appealed, contesting notice, the statute of limitations, and whether the injury arose out of employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's findings, concluding that Osborne provided sufficient notice on July 10, 1980, and that the statute of limitations began when he was diagnosed with a ruptured disc in January 1983, making his June 1983 filing timely. The Court also found material evidence, including medical testimony, to support the causation.

Worker's CompensationBack InjuryRuptured DiscGradual InjuryNotice RequirementStatute of LimitationsMedical CausationExpert TestimonyDoffer PackerEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. 14-08-00795-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2010

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Paul O. Davis sued Snider Industries, a non-subscriber of worker’s compensation insurance, for personal injuries (hernia and lower back) sustained while operating a trailer dolly. The jury found Snider negligent in failing to inspect its dollies but found no proximate cause for Davis's injuries, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Davis appealed on several points, including the exclusion of deposition testimony of Bill and Judith Moon, medical bills prepaid by Snider, and log records on trailer No. 56. The appellant also challenged the jury's findings on negligence and proximate cause as being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the exclusions and upholding the jury's findings on negligence and causation.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseWorker's Compensation Non-SubscriberEvidence ExclusionDeposition TestimonyMedical BillsLog RecordsAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
15
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

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

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Tammy Delyn Long, an employee of Tri-Con Industries, Ltd., suffered a back injury that she attributed to her work. The trial court found the injury compensable, awarding her 55 percent permanent partial disability. However, the Workers’ Compensation Special Appeals Panel reversed this decision, concluding that the evidence preponderated against the trial court's judgment regarding the injury's work-related causation. The Supreme Court granted Long's motion for review, reversing the Panel's judgment and reinstating the trial court's findings. The Court emphasized the deference owed to the trial court's credibility assessments and found that the medical evidence, corroborated by Long's testimony, established a work-related injury. Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's discretion regarding the choice of physician for additional medical examinations.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical CausationPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational DisabilityCredibility AssessmentJudicial ReviewTrial Court DeferencePhysician Examination
References
4
Case No. 2016-01-0372
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The employee, Ceasar Gamble, suffered compensable injuries to his left hip and low back after a fall at work. The employer, Miller Industries, Inc., denied a recommended hip replacement, arguing the need did not primarily arise from employment due to a pre-existing condition. The trial court initially awarded medical benefits for the hip and back and denied temporary disability. Both parties appealed. The Appeals Board affirmed the award of medical benefits for the hip and back injuries and the denial of temporary disability benefits. However, the Board vacated the trial court's finding that the employee would likely prevail in establishing that the hip replacement was primarily caused by the employment, citing insufficient medical evidence to meet the 50% causation threshold required by Tennessee law. The case was remanded for further proceedings to allow the employee to potentially present additional medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation AppealsMedical CausationPre-existing InjuryHip ReplacementSpinal InjuryTemporary DisabilityBurden of ProofInterlocutory DecisionOsteoarthritisAvascular Necrosis
References
5
Case No. 2015-02-0128
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Monica Karig, an employee of Oddello Industries, sought additional medical benefits for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, alleging it was a result of repetitive arm movements at work. She requested an additional panel of physicians after being dissatisfied with the initial panel and a causation letter from Dr. Freeman, which did not confirm work-related causation. The employer, Oddello Industries, denied compensability and requested a signed medical release. The Court denied Ms. Karig's request for an additional panel of physicians, finding she failed to prove entitlement and did not provide expert medical evidence to rebut Dr. Freeman's opinion. The Court granted Oddello's request for a signed medical release for Ms. Karig's medical records.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPanel of PhysiciansMedical ReleaseCausationPre-existing ConditionRepetitive Strain InjuryTennessee Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,648 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