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. 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. 04-90-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1990

INDUSTRIAL ACC. BD. v. Spears

The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Carolyn H. Spears to disqualify an attorney and law firm representing Jesse Casias, the plaintiff in an underlying tort action against the IAB. Casias had sued the IAB for injuries sustained at their office. The IAB argued that a conflict of interest existed because a former chairman of the IAB, Margaret Maisel, who returned to the plaintiff's law firm, had been involved in Casias' worker's compensation claim related to the incident and possessed confidential information as the IAB's former legal advisor. The IAB also contended that Maisel was a potential material witness regarding the crucial issue of notice. The Court of Appeals found that Maisel's prior role and potential testimony created a conflict, necessitating the disqualification of her and her law firm. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing Judge Spears to issue an order disqualifying Bruce Miller and Tinsman & Houser.

MandamusAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestFormer ClientGovernment EmployeeMaterial WitnessTexas Tort Claims ActProfessional ResponsibilityLegal EthicsWaiver
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harvey v. Marlene Industries Corp.

The National Labor Relations Board, through its Acting Regional Director William K. Harvey, sought an injunction under NLRA Section 10(j) to prevent Marlene Industries Corporation from distributing proceeds from an asset sale. This was in anticipation of a final Board decision on unfair labor practice charges, which an Administrative Law Judge had found against Marlene. The long-standing labor dispute originated in 1970 with employee discharges and subsequent picketing. The court, however, denied the injunction, concluding that there was no demonstrated danger of irreparable harm. Furthermore, the court found that the core issues had been previously addressed and resolved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975, ruling that Marlene's actions in 1970 were not unlawful, and thus, extraordinary relief was unwarranted.

Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActAsset SaleRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSixth Circuit Court of AppealsBack Pay ClaimsIrreparable HarmSection 10(j)
References
5
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. 06-21-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2021

in Re Damyien Porter, Warfab Industries, Inc., and Warfab, Inc.

Damyien Porter, Warfab Industries, Inc., and Warfab, Inc. (Relators) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying their plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The underlying lawsuit was brought by Lauren Vasquez, who was injured while riding as a passenger in a Warfab-owned truck driven by Porter, a Warfab employee. Relators argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Warfab was a subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, and Vasquez, also a Warfab employee, had not exhausted administrative remedies. However, the Relators failed to provide undisputed evidence that Warfab had workers' compensation coverage for Vasquez on the date of the accident. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ultimately denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, concluding that the record did not establish the Relators' right to mandamus relief.

MandamusPlea to JurisdictionPlea in AbatementWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdministrative RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewJurisdictional FactsSummary Judgment Standard
References
28
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. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Tri-Con Industries, Ltd.

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Price v. KGM Plastic Industries

Claimant, a sales president for Caprice and KGM Plastic Industries, experienced severe emotional distress due to ongoing conflicts with his superior, Toshimasa Asai, regarding business decisions and job security. This culminated in a heated argument on January 6, 1983, after which the claimant became ill, developed nosebleeds, and suffered a stroke on January 11, 1983, leading to permanent disability. His physician testified that the stroke was causally related to job-induced emotional stress exacerbating pre-existing hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Board found a causally related disability, and this decision was affirmed on appeal, supported by substantial medical evidence despite controverting opinions.

Work-related disabilityEmotional distressCerebral vascular accidentStrokeHypertension exacerbationCausationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceEmployer-employee conflict
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,336 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