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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05084
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2025

Matter of Gunderson v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

The petitioner, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation, sought accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits after falling on a loose vinyl floor tile and injuring his left shoulder. The Medical Board and the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) denied his application, concluding the fall was not an 'accident' because he was aware of the floor's disrepair. The Supreme Court upheld this denial. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding insufficient record support that the petitioner was aware of the particular hazard—that the vinyl floor tiles might shift under his weight. The court concluded that there was no rational, nonspeculative basis for the determination that the event was not an accident, thereby deeming the Board of Trustees' decision arbitrary and capricious. The petition was granted, the determination annulled, and the matter remitted to the Board of Trustees for further proceedings.

Accidental Disability RetirementPublic Employee BenefitsSlip and FallPremises LiabilityAdministrative Law ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingNYCERSMedical BoardAppellate ReviewHazard Awareness
References
5
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. 03-01-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2002

Henrietta Flores v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Henrietta Flores, a social services aide, was severely injured in a car accident while performing her duties. She applied for occupational disability benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS), which were denied by the Board despite an ALJ recommendation. The district court affirmed the Board's denial. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and the Board’s order, holding that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Court found the Board erred in its reweighing of adjudicative facts, its unexplained changes to findings and conclusions, and its failure to provide notice of a new policy on preexisting conditions. Furthermore, the Court determined the Board misinterpreted the statutory definition of occupational disability, clarifying the 'primary-cause' standard for disability resulting from an injury and the 'peculiar risk' standard for state employment duties. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Occupational DisabilityCar Accident InjuryPreexisting ConditionAge-Related DegenerationAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionStatutory InterpretationCausation StandardPrimary CausePeculiar Risk
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dove v. Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division

Marilyn Dove sued the Director of the State Employees Workers’ Compensation Division for total and permanent disability benefits following an alleged employment injury. Despite a jury finding she was injured, it concluded no disability resulted, awarding only $24 for medical costs. Dove appealed, arguing the Director's counsel repeatedly violated a motion in limine by questioning her about collateral benefits and prior claims of permanent incapacity. The appellate court agreed that the questions were prejudicial and incurable by jury instructions, leading to an improper verdict. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMotion in LimineEvidentiary ErrorCollateral Source RulePrejudicial MisconductMistrialCumulative ErrorAppellate ReviewTexas LawDisability Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division v. Lara

The Director of the State Employees Workers’ Compensation Division of the State of Texas appealed a trial court's judgment awarding Appellee damages without offsetting for previously paid workers' compensation benefits. Appellee was injured in 1990 and received weekly benefits, later suing for damages. The jury awarded $44,521.91. Appellant argued the trial court erred by not crediting the $31,383.65 in benefits already paid. The appellate court found Appellant successfully demonstrated the offset amount through documentary evidence, which Appellee did not contradict. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment to include the $31,383.65 offset and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Workers' CompensationOffset PaymentsAffirmative DefenseBurden of ProofDocumentary EvidenceHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationTrial Court Error
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leary v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Dorothy Leary, a part-time junior public health nurse for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, injured her left knee after slipping on stairs due to wet shoes from snow outside. Her application for disability retirement benefits was denied by the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, following a recommendation from the Medical Board that her injuries were not sustained as an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605. Leary challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court initially denied. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granted Leary's petition, annulled the Board's determination, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that her fall constituted an accident.

Workers' CompensationDisability RetirementPublic Health NurseSlip and Fall InjuryAccident DefinitionCPLR Article 78Medical Board ReviewAppellate ReversalRetirement and Social Security LawKings County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 11,110 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