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. 03-03-00587-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Luzstella Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corporation

This is a summary judgment case where Luzstella Arbelaez appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Just Brakes Corporation. Arbelaez sued Just Brakes for vicarious liability after an employee, Brian Paul, collided with her while on a breakfast run for his manager and co-workers. The district court ruled that Paul was not within the course and scope of his employment. The appellate court reviewed the decision de novo, finding that Just Brakes failed to prove as a matter of law that Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment, citing evidence that the errand was a 'first assignment,' routinely done, benefited the employer, and Paul was reimbursed and 'on the clock.' Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating that genuine fact issues exist regarding Paul's employment scope.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployee NegligenceAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewFact IssueEmployer BenefitDeviation from EmploymentTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Just Energy Texas I Corp. v. Texas Workforce Commission and Cedric Thomas

Just Energy Texas I Corp. appealed the dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and Cedric Thomas for lack of jurisdiction. Just Energy challenged the trial court's ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The core issue revolved around whether Just Energy was 'aggrieved' by the TWC's decision reversing an initial denial of unemployment benefits to Thomas, thereby waiving TWC's sovereign immunity. The court concluded that Just Energy's potential future injuries, such as chargebacks or other claims, were not 'actual and immediate' losses required to be considered 'aggrieved' under the Texas Labor Code. Therefore, the Commission's sovereign immunity was not waived, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUnemployment BenefitsJudicial ReviewAggrieved PartySubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeAdministrative RemediesIndependent Contractor
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbelaez v. Just Brakes Corp.

This case involves an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Just Brakes Corporation, where the district court determined that employee Brian Paul was not acting within the course and scope of his employment during a collision with Luz-stella Arbelaez. The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the decision, considering evidence that Paul was on a manager-requested breakfast run, on the clock, and that this routine benefited the employer. The court concluded that Just Brakes failed to conclusively prove that Paul was not acting within the scope of his employment. Consequently, the summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to address the vicarious liability claim.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityNegligence LawsuitAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewEmployee ErrandManager InstructionBenefit to Employer
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VAW of America, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America

Plaintiff VAW of America, Inc. sued United Steelworkers of America to vacate an arbitrator's award. The arbitrator had found that VAW had just cause to discipline an employee, Ms. Krom, but modified her 40.5-hour suspension to 12 hours. VAW argued the arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying the discipline, claiming VAW had exclusive rights under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union countered that the modification drew its essence from the CBA's 'just cause' provision, allowing the arbitrator to review the proportionality of the penalty. The court, citing precedent, ruled that the 'just cause' provision allowed the arbitrator to assess the reasonableness of the penalty, even without explicit language granting modification power. Consequently, the court denied VAW's motion to vacate and granted the Union's cross-motion to confirm the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJust Cause DisciplineArbitrator AuthorityJudicial Review of ArbitrationSummary Judgment MotionEmployee SuspensionInsubordinationContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Little v. Federal Container Corporation

The plaintiff employee, Norman Little, sued the defendant employer, Federal Container Corporation of Tennessee, for damages alleging breach of a 12-month employment contract due to wrongful discharge without cause. The Trial Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the employer breached the contract by discharging Little because his work was deemed satisfactory by his supervisor, Mr. R. E. McCrory, and thus the defendant could not discharge him for cause. On appeal, the court held that the contract provision making Mr. McCrory the sole judge of satisfactory work did not prevent the employer from discharging the plaintiff for just cause. The court found the Trial Judge's ruling on this point was an error of law that restricted the introduction of evidence. Therefore, the case was remanded for a new trial to allow both parties to present full proof regarding the existence of just cause for the plaintiff's discharge.

Employment ContractBreach of ContractWrongful TerminationJust Cause for DischargeAppellate ReviewRemand for New TrialContract InterpretationManagerial DiscretionCorporate ReorganizationTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Just Bagels Manufacturing, Inc. v. Mayorkas

Just Bagels Manufacturing, Inc. sought judicial review of a decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) denying an employment visa petition for Manuel Chimbaina Morocho. Just Bagels challenged CIS's determination that it lacked the ability to pay the "proffered wage" in 2001, arguing that depreciation deductions and bank balances should be considered differently, and that the 9/11 attacks made 2001 an aberrational year. The court upheld CIS's decision, finding that its treatment of depreciation was rational, its rejection of bank statements as insufficient evidence was within its discretion, and Just Bagels failed to provide sufficient evidence to warrant a "totality of circumstances" review. Consequently, CIS's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Just Bagels' cross-motion was denied, dismissing the complaint.

Immigration LawEmployment VisaAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentUnited States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesAbility to PayDepreciation ExpenseFinancial DocumentsLabor Certification
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2011

Town of Babylon v. Stacy Carson

The Town of Babylon challenged an arbitration award that reduced a disciplinary penalty imposed on its employee, Stacy Carson, which involved restoring 10 days of pay and shortening her probation. The Town's petition to vacate the award was initially denied by the Supreme Court, which held the arbitrator had broad authority despite limitations in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment, finding the arbitrator exceeded his power because the CBA only permitted a remedy if 'just cause' for discipline was not found, and the arbitrator had, in fact, affirmed 'just cause'. Consequently, the arbitration award's modifications were vacated, and the original penalties were reinstated.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementDisciplinary ActionEmployee MisconductJudicial ReviewArbitrator AuthorityVacate AwardConfirm AwardCPLR Article 75Just Cause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cameron v. J. C. Lawrence Leather Co.

Plaintiff Cameron was fired by J. C. Lawrence Leather Company due to a congenital back anomaly that predisposed him to accidental injury, despite his current ability to perform duties. He sued for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, which included provisions for discharge for "just cause." The Circuit Court dismissed his suit. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the company acted in good faith based on medical advice that Cameron's condition made continued employment dangerous. The court concluded that the right to discharge for physical disability, not explicitly covered by the "just cause" disciplinary clause, fell within the employer's reserved management rights under the contract.

DischargePhysical DisabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseManagement RightsMedical FindingsPre-existing ConditionEmployment LawAppellate DecisionContract Interpretation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,999 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