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 Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

JACK DUPONT (Dec'd), ANYAWAN DUPONT (Widow) vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves a remand from the Court of Appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code Section 5801. Applicant's attorney and the defendant's attorney jointly stipulated to an award of $11,600.00 to resolve this issue. The WCAB approved this stipulation and returned the matter to the trial level.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardremandedstipulationapplicant's attorneydefendant's attorneyjoint lettertrial levelaward
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Jill Herz, P.C.

The City of Dallas appealed a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction against Jill Herz, P.C.'s claim for attorney's fees under the Texas Labor Code. Herz represented Clifford Beamon, a firefighter who received worker's compensation benefits from the City and later secured a third-party settlement. Herz sought attorney's fees from the City's reimbursement amount, but the City asserted governmental immunity. The appellate court reviewed the plea de novo and concluded that the Texas Labor Code, specifically section 417.003, does not contain a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against municipalities acting as self-insurers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and remanded the cause.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityAttorney's FeesWorker's CompensationTexas Labor CodePlea to the JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealReimbursementSelf-Insured MunicipalityStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
Case No. 04-15-00307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2015

Autozone, Inc. and Autozoners L.L.C. v. Mario Flores

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by AutoZone, Inc. and AutoZoners, L.L.C. against Mario Flores, challenging the denial of their motion to compel arbitration. Flores, an AutoZone employee, filed a personal injury lawsuit after an alleged workplace injury. AutoZone sought to enforce an arbitration agreement from its Occupational Injury Benefit Plan, which Flores had signed and re-acknowledged multiple times. Flores argued that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply due to an employment contract exception, that it violated the Texas Labor Code, and that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because he could not read English. The appellants' brief argues that the FAA applies due to interstate commerce and explicit agreement, that the section 1 FAA exception only applies to transportation workers, that the Texas Labor Code argument is preempted and was conceded, and that the unconscionability claim against the entire contract should be for the arbitrator, and is meritless under Texas law which does not recognize illiteracy as a defense to contract. The trial court denied AutoZone's motion to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Interlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationProcedural UnconscionabilityEmployment ContractInterstate CommerceTexas Labor CodeContract EnforcementDispute Resolution
References
95
Case No. ADJ4433104 (ANA 0381115) ADJ4664599 (ANA 0381113)
Regular
Feb 02, 2016

JOSE CHONG (deceased) vs. SPORTS GRILL, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a decision denying applicant's cumulative and specific injury claims, finding a lack of medical evidence and credibility issues with the deceased applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the original order concerning Labor Code section 5402. The Board affirmed the denial of the presumption of compensability, finding the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proof regarding timely denial by the insurer Zenith. Issues related to Labor Code section 5402(c) were deferred.

WCABLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryAOE/COELabor Code section 5402Presumption of CompensabilityApplicant's Credibility
References
0
Case No. 20-0552
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2022

S.C. v. M.B., Individually and as Next Friend of I.C.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case concerning the division of community property not addressed in a final divorce decree. The core issue was whether Family Code Subchapter C, enacted in 1987, replaced the traditional Property Code partition remedy and gave exclusive jurisdiction to the original divorce court. The Court held that Subchapter C provides an additional remedy, allowing for a "just and right" division post-divorce, but does not eliminate the existing partition action or impose exclusive jurisdiction on the original divorce court. This means former spouses can still pursue a Property Code partition, but if either spouse invokes Subchapter C, the "just and right" standard must be applied by any court with jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that the legislature did not intend to abolish common-law rights or impose jurisdictional restrictions without clear language.

Post-divorce property divisionCommunity propertyTenants in commonExclusive remedyExclusive jurisdictionStatutory constructionProperty Code partitionFamily CodeJust and right standardFinal divorce decree
References
77
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 14,249 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