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
Nov 04, 1999

Claim of Decker v. Kings Park Industries, Inc.

The claimant, an operating engineer, sought workers' compensation benefits for a 27.9% binaural hearing loss allegedly sustained during his employment with Kings Park Industries. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the claimant had removed himself from harmful noise exposure. However, in an amended decision, the Board ruled there was insufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between the claimant's hearing loss and his employment, subsequently denying his claim for benefits. Both the carrier and the claimant appealed this amended decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings regarding both the claimant's removal from noise exposure and the lack of causal relationship evidence, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation Law § 49-bbCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence RequirementsHarmful Noise ExposureWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionsAppellate ReviewDenial of BenefitsPrima Facie Medical EvidencePhysician Testimony Preclusion
References
7
Case No. 17 NY3d 702
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of the Industrial Board of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a general contractor, HOD Construction Corp., acted as a joint employer of its subcontractor Well Built Construction Corp.'s masonry workers, thereby owing them unpaid wages. The lower courts had found joint employment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the standard contractor/subcontractor relationship during the bulk of the project did not establish joint employment under the Labor Law. The Court determined that factors relied upon by the Board were common in construction and did not indicate direct control or functional supervision by HOD over Well Built's employees. However, the case was remitted to the Industrial Board of Appeals for a determination on whether HOD's owner made an enforceable promise to pay the workers for a specific six-day period after the subcontractor abandoned the project, which could establish an employment relationship for that limited time.

Joint EmploymentSubcontractor LiabilityUnpaid WagesGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityLabor LawEconomic Reality TestAppellate ReviewRemittalConstruction IndustryWorkers' Rights
References
13
Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 02209 [126 AD3d 575]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Matter of Exceed Contr. Corp. v. Industrial Bd. of Appeals

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) that Exceed Contracting Corp. was an 'employer' within the meaning of Labor Law § 190 (3). Petitioners challenged the IBA's decision, which had affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's orders for them to pay unpaid wages. The court found substantial evidence supported the IBA's findings that Exceed's vice president controlled claimants' work and that a purported subcontractor acted as Exceed's agent, establishing an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Unpaid wagesEmployer determinationLabor LawSubcontractor liabilityCredibility findingsCPLR Article 78Appellate reviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborDrywall subcontractor
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,000 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