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. 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. 04-19-00538-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

William Alec Tisdall, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Spine & Joint Pain Specialists v. Thomas Varebrook and Rebecca Varebrook

William Alec Tisdall, M.D., and his medical practice appealed a final judgment stemming from a medical negligence lawsuit initiated by Thomas and Rebecca Varebrook. The jury found Tisdall negligent, awarding substantial damages after Thomas developed a severe septic sacroiliac joint infection following steroid injections administered by Dr. Tisdall, which left him permanently disabled and unable to continue his police career. On appeal, Tisdall argued that the trial court erred by allowing improper jury argument, admitting cumulative and prejudicial independent medical examinations, and denying a motion for mistrial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury argument was invited error, the medical examination evidence was properly admitted given its probative value and lack of unfair prejudice, and any error regarding the motion for mistrial was unpreserved and, if preserved, cured by the court's instruction to disregard.

Medical negligenceJury verdict appealEvidentiary rulingsImproper jury argumentIndependent medical examinationsMotion for mistrialInstruction to disregardStandard of careCausationDamages award
References
31
Case No. ADJ4094302 (AHM 0101287)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

ROBERT STAMPS vs. KENNY-SHEA-TRAYLOR-FRONTIER-KEMPER JOINT VENTURE; AIG SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a supplemental attorney's fee award for the applicant's attorney, John M. Urban, under Labor Code §5801. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney requested $5400.00 for 18 hours of work at $300 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The Board awarded the requested amount to John M. Urban against the defendant joint venture.

ADJ4094302SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE §5801Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate Districtpetition for writ of reviewno reasonable basisremandattorney's feesapplicant's attorneyJohn M. Urban
References
1
Case No. ADJ4403161
Regular
Apr 04, 2013

LORENA IBARRA vs. BOONE INTERNATIONAL, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a joint and several award against Boone International and its carrier. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the petition for reconsideration was not properly verified and lacked merit. The WCJ concluded that defendant Select Personnel and its carrier were properly included in the joint and several award under Labor Code § 5500.5(c), as they were joined as parties before the applicant's election against Boone International. The Board affirmed that Select's rights to contribution proceedings under Labor Code § 5500.5(e) remain available.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContinuous TraumaJoint and Several AwardLabor Code § 5500.5Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardDue ProcessApportionment of LiabilityRight of ContributionEmployer Joinder
References
0
Case No. No. 02-10-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Chesser v. LIFECARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Curtis Chesser, through his spouse and power of attorney Ava Chesser, sued LifeCare Management Services (LMS) and LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas (Hospital) for health care liability. After Chesser suffered a mild stroke, he was transferred to Hospital where a PEG tube was surgically inserted. The tube's bolster was too tight, leading to severe pain, tissue necrosis, hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, cerebral injury, and permanent cognitive deficits. A jury found for Chesser. The Court of Appeals sustained Chesser's issue that no evidence supported the negligence of three settling doctors, modifying the judgment to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit of $183,000. It also sustained Appellees' challenge to the jury's joint enterprise finding, removing joint and several liability for LMS and making it severally liable for 30% of the judgment. Furthermore, the court modified the judgment to impose several liability on Hospital and LMS for their respective $250,000 noneconomic damage awards, affirming the trial court's judgment as modified.

Health Care LiabilityMedical NegligencePEG Tube ProcedureJoint EnterpriseVicarious LiabilityComparative ResponsibilitySettlement CreditNoneconomic DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory Caps
References
70
Case No. ADJ3588884 (FRE 0222309) ADJ4330880 (FRE 0223217)
Regular
Feb 22, 2011

ENEDELIA LUNA vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE CIRCUIT; AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By BROADSPIRE

This case concerns American Motorists Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award. The original award addressed two admitted industrial injuries sustained by the applicant, one against Fresno Unified School District (FUSD) and another against United Artists Theatre Circuit, insured by American Motorists. The petition specifically challenges the WCJ's failure to incorporate a stipulated liability apportionment between the defendants into the award. The Appeals Board denied the petition, ruling that the WCJ correctly deferred the issue of contribution between co-defendants, as they remain jointly and severally liable to the applicant.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardSpecial Education Teacher's AideCumulative InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentPermissibly Self-InsuredStipulated Percentage of LiabilityContribution Between Co-Defendants
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2003

At & T Corp. v. Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc.

This order from District Judge Marrero confirms an arbitration award concerning a dispute between AT & T Corp. (as co-maintenance authority for TAT-10 submarine cable owners) and Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc. Tyco had previously admitted liability for severing the TAT-10 cable in 1998, leading to an arbitration panel awarding the Cable Owners $5,798,075.83 plus interest. Tyco sought to vacate this award, challenging the Panel's legal interpretations regarding a private cause of action under the Cable Convention, the common ownership doctrine, and the inclusion of annual restoration costs as damages. The Court reviewed Tyco's claims for legal error and insufficient discovery, applying a rigorous standard for disturbing arbitration awards. Ultimately, the judge rejected all of Tyco's arguments, finding no manifest disregard of the law or denial of fundamental fairness by the arbitration panel, and confirmed the award in its entirety.

ArbitrationSubmarine CableTelecommunicationsDamagesManifest Disregard of LawStandard of ReviewCable ConventionCable ActLoss of UseRestoration Costs
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kergosien v. Ocean Energy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Seagull Energy to vacate an arbitral award. Seagull Energy had amended its management stability plan, which provided severance benefits, to exclude employees who retained their jobs after their divisions were sold during a merger with Ocean Energy. An arbitrator awarded $1.5 million to these excluded employees, prompting Seagull Energy to seek vacation of the award. The court found that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by applying an incorrect standard of review to the compensation committee's decision, misinterpreting the plan's text regarding amendments and fiduciary duties. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitral award and remanded the claims for a new arbitration.

Severance PlanArbitral AwardPlan AmendmentFiduciary DutyERISAScope of Arbitrator's PowerAbuse of DiscretionCompensation CommitteeCorporate MergerEmployer-Employee Benefits
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawler v. Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture

Dalia H. Lawler, a hotel maid supervisor, sustained injuries when a ceiling collapsed, leading her to file for workers' compensation and receive benefits. Subsequently, she sued her employer, Dallas Statler-Hilton Joint Venture, and its members, Hilton Hotels Corporation (HHC) and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, along with Commerce Garage Joint Venture, for negligence under premises liability. The defendants were granted summary judgment, asserting immunity under the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Lawler challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the joint venture and its members were not all her employers. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that individual members of a joint venture are considered employers for workers' compensation purposes, thus barring Lawler's separate negligence claim.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentJoint VentureEmployer ImmunityExclusive RemedyNegligenceTexas Civil ProcedureAffidavit CompetencyAgency Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Z.A.O., Inc. v. Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture

Yarbrough Drive Center Joint Venture (Yarbrough) sued Z.A.O., Inc. (ZAO) for breach of contract, nuisance, and trespass after ZAO, a former tenant operating a gas station, failed to remove hazardous substances from the leased property in El Paso, Texas upon lease termination. Despite ZAO's efforts and a state commission letter indicating no further corrective action was necessary for ZAO, the trial court found ZAO liable for trespass and nuisance. On appeal, the court affirmed the breach of contract claim, finding sufficient evidence that the lease required ZAO to remove all toxic substances. However, the appellate court reversed the findings of malice, nuisance, and trespass due to insufficient evidence, particularly noting that the state commission's determination of no further action superseded common law trespass claims. Consequently, the awards for past and future rental losses were reversed, but those for repair costs and soil testing were affirmed. Attorney's fees were reversed and remanded for segregation, as recovery is limited to the breach of contract claim.

Breach of ContractNuisanceTrespassEnvironmental ContaminationHazardous WasteLease AgreementDamagesAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 13,569 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