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

In re the Claim of Dzinovic

Claimant, employed by a nonprofit assisting refugees, was laid off due to reduced refugee entries after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. After exhausting basic unemployment benefits, he applied for extended benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A), designed for displaced airline-related workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that to qualify for TEUC-A benefits, the separation from employment must be directly linked to specific airline-related causes or the military conflict in Iraq, none of which applied to the claimant's situation.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-AAirline-Related WorkersDisplaced WorkersSeptember 11 AttacksFederal Immigration PoliciesLayoff EligibilityQualifying EmploymentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Almeda

Claimant, an advisory programmer analyst for IBM Corporation, was laid off in June 2002. After exhausting regular unemployment insurance benefits, she filed for additional benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her claim, finding she was ineligible. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's separation from employment was due to general economic conditions following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq, rather than any of the specific qualifying events for TEUC-A benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceTEUC-AAirline IndustryLayoffEconomic DownturnEligibilityAppealAdministrative LawSeptember 11Terrorist Attacks
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STUTIS v. De Dietrich Group

This case involves Gulf War Veterans suing Buchi Labortechnik AG and De Dietrich Process Systems, S.A., alleging injuries from chemical weapons supplied to Iraq. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs cross-moved for jurisdictional discovery and leave to amend their complaint to establish jurisdiction through the defendants' U.S. subsidiaries. The court examined New York law regarding general jurisdiction, specifically the 'agent' and 'mere department' theories for subsidiary liability. Finding insufficient factual allegations to establish jurisdiction over the foreign parent corporations or their subsidiaries, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' requests.

Personal JurisdictionForeign CorporationSubsidiary LiabilityAgent TheoryMere Department TestRule 12(b)(2)Rule 15(a)Rule 4(k)(2)New York Civil Practice Law and RulesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Kohut

Claimant, a former employee of IBM and then EIT, was laid off from EIT in November 2002. She sought extended unemployment benefits under a temporary program for displaced airline-related workers (Pub L 108-11), claiming her work supplied various airlines. Her application was denied as her layoff was attributed to IBM's sale of her division and EIT's subsequent reorganization, not the qualifying events outlined in the statute (reduction in airline service due to 9/11, airport closure, or Iraq conflict). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this denial. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to prove her layoff was due to any of the statutory qualifying conditions, thereby affirming the denial of benefits.

unemployment insuranceextended benefitstemporary extended unemployment compensation programairline industrydisplaced workerseligibilitylayoffbusiness salereorganizationstatutory interpretation
References
2
Case No. E2011-00484-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2012

Mickel Hoback v. City of Chattanooga

Mickel Hoback, a police officer diagnosed with PTSD after serving in Iraq, was terminated by the City of Chattanooga based on a "fitness for duty" psychological examination deeming him unfit. Hoback appealed his termination to the Chancery Court, which reversed the City Commission's decision, finding it applied incorrect legal standards and ordering reinstatement. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed that the Commission used the wrong legal standard, specifically Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-8-106, which had been deemed invalid under a federal consent order related to the Americans with Disabilities Act. However, the appellate court vacated the order for reinstatement and remanded the case back to the Chattanooga City Council for reconsideration under the proper legal standards outlined in the federal consent order.

Police Officer TerminationPTSD DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewWrong Legal StandardReinstatement VacatedRemand to City CouncilADA ComplianceDisability DiscriminationEmployment Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abecassis v. Wyatt

This suit was brought by American plaintiffs injured in terrorist attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2002. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, companies and individuals in the oil and gas business, illegally used the United Nations Oil-for-Food Program to purchase oil from Iraq. They claim that the defendants made illegal kickbacks to a secret bank account controlled by Saddam Hussein, who then used these funds to support Palestinian terrorist organizations and compensate families of suicide bombers, aiding in terrorist recruitment. The plaintiffs filed under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the ATA’s four-year limitations period. The court denied the defendants' motion, finding a genuine factual dispute regarding when the plaintiffs should have discovered their claims, thus allowing for equitable tolling.

terrorismAntiterrorism ActOil-for-Food ProgramSaddam Husseinkickbacksfraudulent concealmentequitable tollingstatute of limitationsMiddle EastIsrael-Palestine conflict
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2017

Continental Insurance Co. v. Dawson

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for medical expenses paid on behalf of David Dawson, who was severely burned while working in Iraq. Plaintiff Continental Insurance Company, as Hill's workers' compensation carrier and assignee of Aetna Life Insurance Company's subrogation rights, sought to recover $282,774.51 from Dawson's settlement in a state lawsuit against Fluor Intercontinental, Inc. Dawson asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including preemption by Colorado law and breach of fiduciary duty by Continental and Aetna under ERISA. The Court granted Continental's motions for summary judgment, ruling that Colorado law was preempted by ERISA and that neither Continental nor Aetna breached their fiduciary duties. Consequently, Dawson's counterclaims were dismissed, and Continental's motion to amend its complaint to add a separate LHWCA claim for an additional $219,000 was denied.

ERISALHWCASubrogationReimbursementFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentMotion to AmendPreemptionState Law PreemptionSettlement Agreement
References
20
Case No. 03-09-00208-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2009

C.B. v. D.S.

Hope Rampy filed a mandamus petition challenging a temporary order in a child custody modification suit initiated by her ex-husband, Victor Colon-Melendez. The order sought to transfer primary residence of their daughter, L.C., to Victor during Hope's twelve-month military deployment to Iraq, despite Hope's arrangements for L.C. to stay with her current husband, Mike Rampy. The appellate court reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing the temporary order without satisfying the statutory prerequisites, specifically regarding significant impairment to the child or a six-month voluntary relinquishment. Finding no evidence to support these conditions, the court concluded the district court abused its discretion. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted Hope's petition, directing the district court to vacate its temporary order.

child custodymandamustemporary ordersmilitary deploymentfamily lawparental rightsstatutory interpretationabuse of discretionjoint managing conservatorshipprimary residence
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. MassMutual Financial Group

Plaintiff Andrae Evans, a member of the New York Army National Guard, filed a lawsuit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) against his former employer, MassMutual Financial Group, and employee William D. Costello. Evans sought reinstatement as a sales manager after returning from active duty in Iraq, but was offered a lower position as a sales agent. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Evans was an independent contractor not covered by USERRA and that he was not entitled to the sales manager position. The court denied the motion, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Evans was an employee under the "economic realities" test and whether he was entitled to the sales manager position under USERRA's "escalator principle." The decision emphasizes the liberal construction of USERRA in favor of veterans and clarifies that discriminatory intent is not required for reemployment claims under USERRA Section 4312.

USERRAreemployment rightsmilitary serviceindependent contractoreconomic realities testescalator principlesummary judgmentemployment lawveterans' rightsNew York Army National Guard
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 14 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