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

Adams v. ALCOA, INC.

In this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a class of aluminum factory workers alleged that Alcoa Inc. failed to compensate them for activities like arriving early, donning and doffing protective gear, walking to work, and showering. Alcoa moved for summary judgment, arguing these activities were not compensable. The Court, applying the Second Circuit's narrow interpretation of 'integral and indispensable' activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act, found that the protective equipment was neither indispensable (as employees could change at home) nor integral (as the workplace was not a 'lethal atmosphere'). Consequently, the time spent on these activities, including associated walking and showering, was deemed non-compensable. The Court therefore granted Alcoa's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActSummary JudgmentDonning and DoffingProtective Personal EquipmentCompensable WorkPortal-to-Portal ActIntegral and Indispensable TestLethal Atmosphere DoctrineWage and Hour ClaimsEmployer Liability
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. 04-98-00477-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1999

Bryan Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Bryan Barnhill appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Barnhill suffered a back injury at work and subsequently sued his employer, initially naming Normandy Terrace, Inc. and later Riverside Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Care, Inc., before finally identifying Integrated Health Services, Inc. as his employer. Integrated moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which Barnhill countered with a fraudulent concealment defense. The appellate court found that Barnhill presented genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, given that Integrated was aware of the lawsuit and had business connections with other named defendants. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation DisputeStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment DefenseEmployer IdentificationDiscovery IssuesAppellate ProcedureEquitable EstoppelPleading AmendmentsNon-subscriber Employer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2001

Anderson v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Octavius Anderson and other hourly production employees against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation for unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as well as breach of contract. The employees, working in poultry processing plants in Texas, challenged the employer's 'line time' payment method and sought compensation for time spent donning, doffing, and cleaning sanitary and safety equipment. The court found that Pilgrim's Pride's 'line time' system complied with FLSA record-keeping provisions. Furthermore, the court determined that the activities of changing and cleaning equipment did not constitute compensable 'work' under the FLSA, nor were they 'integral and indispensable' principal activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act. The court also concluded that any time spent on these activities was de minimis. Lastly, collective bargaining agreements established a custom and practice of non-compensation under FLSA Section 203(o). Therefore, the court denied all claims against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, entering judgment for the defendant.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActDonning and DoffingCompensable WorkPreliminary ActivitiesPostliminary ActivitiesDe Minimis DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementPoultry Processing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Koch Foods, Inc.

This case involves a collective action brought by current and former hourly paid production workers (Plaintiffs) against Koch Foods, LLC, a chicken processing facility, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs claim they are not compensated for time spent retrieving, donning, doffing, and washing sanitary and protective gear, washing hands, and walking to/from work areas, nor for bona fide meal periods. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted in part Koch Foods' motion for summary judgment regarding claims barred by FLSA § 203(o) and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for donning, doffing, and hand washing after April 13, 2006, ruling that these activities constitute "changing clothes" and "washing" of the person. However, the court denied summary judgment on whether these activities are "integral and indispensable" or "work" under the FLSA, finding material issues of fact. Additionally, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the bona fide meal period claim and the de minimis doctrine defense, citing factual disputes regarding activities performed during meal breaks and the amount of uncompensated time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liquidated damages was also denied due to unresolved factual issues and the lack of established actual damages. Finally, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for court-ordered mediation.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Wage and Hour LitigationSummary Judgment MotionsCollective Action LawsuitPortal-to-Portal Act ExclusionsDonning and Doffing TimeCompensable Work TimeUnpaid Meal BreaksCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Worker Protection
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Justice Paul W. Green dissents in a summary judgment appeal concerning Bryan Barnhill's claim against Integrated Health Services, Inc. (IHS). The majority found a fact issue regarding Barnhill's argument that IHS fraudulently concealed its identity, thereby preventing his claim from being time-barred. Justice Green argues that no evidence supports IHS having a duty to disclose its identity or purposefully concealing it, and thus the summary judgment in favor of IHS should have been affirmed. He critiques the majority's reasoning for finding a duty to disclose based on workers' compensation notice requirements and an attorney's knowledge, deeming it an extraordinary holding without precedent. Green concludes that Barnhill failed to demonstrate IHS acted fraudulently or that he lacked means to discover IHS's involvement, asserting the summary judgment should stand.

Summary JudgmentFraudulent ConcealmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelDissenting OpinionPersonal InjuryTexas Civil PracticeAppellate LawEmployer LiabilityDiscovery Issues
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06969 [211 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Integrity Intl., Inc. v. HP, Inc.

Plaintiff, Integrity International, Inc., doing business as Tarrenpoint, sued defendants, HP, Inc., for breach of service agreements dating from 1994 to 2016, primarily concerning defendants' alleged failure to make timely payments and pay late fees. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as time-barred, and also dismissing claims for late fees, finding them not contemplated by the agreements. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal regarding late fees and the timeliness of breach of contract claims. However, the Appellate Division found triable issues of fact concerning whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by diverting clients and workers. The court also held that limitation of liability clauses in the agreements were enforceable, precluding consequential damages but allowing for the recovery of general damages.

Contract DisputeTimely PaymentLate FeesSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsImplied CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingLimitation of LiabilityConsequential DamagesGeneral Damages
References
28
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-01-0091 / 870-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2016

Hackney, Rachel v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., et al.

Rachel Hackney, an employee of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., sustained injuries after a fall at work. She sought initial unauthorized emergency room treatment before receiving authorized medical care and being assigned work restrictions. Hackney later requested temporary partial disability benefits and payment for the unauthorized emergency room bill, asserting the employer's light duty offers were unreasonable. The trial court denied her requests, finding her refusal of light duty was for personal reasons unrelated to the injury and the emergency treatment was not authorized. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Temporary Partial DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentLight Duty RefusalWork RestrictionsMedical AuthorizationEmployer AccommodationWorkers' Compensation AppealsTrial Court AffirmationPersonal Reasons for RefusalCausation of Injury
References
10
Case No. 03-19-00362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy v. University of Texas System

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring The University of Texas System regarding the disclosure of documents under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). The documents pertained to an independent investigation by Kroll Associates, Inc. into UT System's admissions policies. The district court had granted summary judgment, finding the documents protected by attorney-client privilege. However, the Court of Appeals determined that Kroll was not acting as a "lawyer's representative." Thus, the attorney-client privilege did not apply, and the documents, after specific redactions, were ruled to be public information subject to disclosure. The summary judgment of the trial court was reversed and rendered.

Public Information ActAttorney-Client PrivilegeIndependent InvestigationAdmissions PoliciesSummary JudgmentDisclosureWaiverLawyer's RepresentativeEducation RecordsFERPA
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,283 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