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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Elma Manliguez brought claims against Martin and Somanti Joseph, alleging involuntary servitude, Alien Tort Claims Act violation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, deprivation of overtime compensation, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation. Defendants sought to dismiss all claims, arguing they were time-barred or lacked sufficient grounds. District Judge GARAUFIS denied the motion in its entirety, finding that a private civil cause of action exists for involuntary servitude under 18 U.S.C. § 1584, subject to New York's three-year personal injury statute of limitations. The court also determined that the ten-year statute of limitations from the Torture Victims Protection Act applied to the ATCA claim and that New York law allowed for overtime compensation for domestic employees. Furthermore, the court found the claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation were sufficiently pled under Rule 9(b).

Involuntary ServitudeAlien Tort Claims ActIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConversionOvertime CompensationFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsDomestic Worker Abuse
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiffs, a class of minors civilly committed to New York State Division for Youth camps as juvenile delinquents or persons in need of supervision, allege that various state officials have violated their constitutional right to be free from involuntary servitude and various sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. They seek declaratory, injunctive, and damage relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity and that no constitutional rights were violated, and challenged the applicability of the Thirteenth Amendment and FLSA to civilly committed juveniles. They also opposed class certification. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding no Eleventh Amendment bar to prospective injunctive relief or individual liability, and that the Thirteenth Amendment and FLSA could apply to civilly committed individuals based on the allegations of excessive work. The court also granted class certification for the involuntary servitude and declaratory judgment under FLSA claims, but denied class action treatment for FLSA damages due to statutory limitations.

Juvenile DelinquencyInvoluntary ServitudeFair Labor Standards ActCivil CommitmentClass Action CertificationEleventh AmendmentThirteenth AmendmentFederal Court JurisdictionProspective Injunctive ReliefQualified Immunity
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The case concerns cross-appeals from decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a bus driver's involuntary retirement and lost earnings. The claimant suffered a seizure and physical injuries, leading to disability retirement. The Board initially found involuntary retirement due to permanent partial disability but shifted the burden to the claimant to prove subsequent lost earnings were causally related to his disability after May 13, 2004, concluding his failure to seek work caused the loss. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred in shifting the burden to the claimant, as an involuntary retirement due to a permanent partial disability infers post-retirement lost earnings are due to that disability. The court emphasized that merely not seeking work post-retirement does not defeat this inference or shift the burden. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Involuntary RetirementPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Earnings CausationBurden of Proof ShiftRebuttable PresumptionFailure to Seek WorkAppellate ReversalRemittiturBus Driver DisabilitySeizure-related Injuries
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1998

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

This appeal arises from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee's dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy petition filed against Taylor & Associates, L.P. The appellants, a group of creditors led by James S. Bush, challenged the Bankruptcy Court's decision, arguing that Taylor & Associates, L.P. was an implied general partnership between Joseph C. Taylor and Dudley W. Taylor, making it eligible as a debtor under Chapter 7. The District Court reviewed whether the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard was correctly applied to establish an oral partnership under Tennessee law, affirming that it was. Further, the court conducted a de novo review of the sufficiency of evidence and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that the appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Taylor & Associates, L.P. was such a partnership, especially concerning the parameters and purpose of any alleged partnership and its identity with the named entity. Consequently, the dismissal of the involuntary petition was affirmed.

BankruptcyPartnership LawInvoluntary PetitionClear and Convincing EvidenceTennessee LawFraudPonzi SchemeCorporate EntitiesAppellate ReviewStandard of Proof
References
19
Case No. 2015-07-0143
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2017

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Bradley Wilson, an employee of Dana Holding Corporation, alleged a bilateral carpal tunnel injury due to repetitive work as a press operator. He notified Dana of his injury and sought workers' compensation. Dana denied the claim and later filed a motion for involuntary dismissal, arguing Mr. Wilson failed to provide expert medical proof that his employment caused his injury. The Court agreed, finding Mr. Wilson did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his injury arose primarily out of his employment and lacked sufficient medical causation evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Dana's motion for involuntary dismissal, dismissing Mr. Wilson's case with prejudice. The Court also reserved ruling on Dana's request for repayment of temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical CausationInvoluntary DismissalBurden of ProofExpert Medical TestimonyAttendance Policy ViolationTemporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Claimant, a heavy truck mechanic, sustained a back injury requiring surgery in 2009. Despite returning to work without restrictions, he felt unable to perform his duties and retired in 2010, subsequently seeking lost time benefits. The employer and its third-party administrator argued that he had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a permanent partial disability but denied benefits due to voluntary withdrawal. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding an involuntary retirement and awarding continuing benefits. The employer and administrator appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that the claimant's disability significantly contributed to his decision to retire and his ongoing wage loss, supported by his testimony and medical opinions.

Workers' CompensationInvoluntary RetirementPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Time BenefitsLabor Market WithdrawalBack InjuryDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewMedical OpinionSocial Security Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The claimant, who received workers’ compensation benefits for a 1995 work injury, had a related third-party action dismissed on default in 2003. The self-insured employer then suspended benefits, arguing the claimant voluntarily abandoned the action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). After initial conflicting rulings, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ’s decision to reinstate benefits, finding the abandonment involuntary. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, holding that the inaction of claimant's third-party counsel did not constitute voluntary abandonment by the claimant.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionInvoluntary DismissalBenefit SuspensionAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Legal Counsel NegligenceSubstantial EvidenceFactual QuestionCredibility Assessment
References
6
Case No. 00769-07
Regular Panel Decision

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

Ten Filipino nurses, along with their attorney, were indicted in Suffolk County following their collective resignation from a Long Island nursing home. The prosecution charged them with conspiracy and endangering the welfare of children and physically-disabled persons. The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to halt the prosecution, arguing that it violated the nurses' Thirteenth Amendment rights against involuntary servitude by criminalizing their resignation and the attorney's First Amendment rights for providing legal advice. The court granted the petition, finding that the prosecution impermissibly infringed upon these constitutional rights. It concluded that the state's interest in preventing harm did not justify abridging the right to freely leave employment or punishing an attorney for good faith legal counsel.

Thirteenth AmendmentInvoluntary ServitudeFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechAttorney-Client PrivilegeCriminal ProsecutionWrit of ProhibitionNursesEmployment LawResignation
References
30
Case No. 06-00-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2001

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Lula Gilder and Bernice Gilder sued Jerry Moore for wrongful termination, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) based on involuntary servitude and retaliation. They claimed they were fired for not working "off the clock." A jury sided with the Gilders, but the trial court's denial of Moore's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was appealed. The appellate court found that the Gilders had abandoned claims of racial discrimination, which are essential for a Section 1981 action. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Moore, concluding that without a showing of purposeful discrimination, the Section 1981 claims could not be sustained.

Wrongful terminationInvoluntary servitudeFLSACivil Rights ActSection 1981RetaliationEmployment lawJury instruction errorAppellate reversalDiscrimination
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Marichu Suarez Baoanan sued Lauro Liboon Baja, Jr., Norma Castro Baja, Maria Elizabeth Baja Facundo, and Labaire International Travel, Inc., alleging human trafficking, involuntary servitude, and forced labor. Baoanan claimed the defendants lured her from the Philippines with false promises of a nursing job but then forced her to work as a domestic servant in their New York household at the Philippine Mission. The defendants, Lauro Liboon Baja, Jr. (a former diplomat) and Norma Castro Baja, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). The Court analyzed whether Baja's employment of Baoanan constituted an "official act" under VCDR Article 39(2), which would grant him residual immunity. The Court concluded that the employment, being for personal household needs, was a private act, not an official one, despite occurring within the Philippine Mission. Consequently, Baja was not immune from either the employment-related or non-employment claims. Norma Castro Baja, never a member of the mission, was also found to have no residual immunity. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied.

Diplomatic ImmunityHuman TraffickingForced LaborInvoluntary ServitudeVienna Convention on Diplomatic RelationsVCDR Article 39(2)Subject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissDomestic WorkerPrivate Act
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 163 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