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. 2018-03-0237
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Travis, Fred v. Carter Express, Inc.

Fred Travis, II, an employee, suffered a right shoulder injury while working for Carter Express, Inc. Carter denied his claim and failed to timely initiate benefits, arguing an Indiana forum-selection clause applied and that Travis's injury description was inconsistent. The case was remanded from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to reconsider attorney's fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1)(b). The Court found Carter's failure to initiate benefits was incorrect, erroneous, and inconsistent with the law, as the forum-selection clause was void and Travis did not elect Indiana remedies. Considering the 'extremely limited circumstances' framework from Thompson v. Comcast Corp., the Court concluded that Carter's delay without an expert opinion to rebut medical evidence justified the award of attorney's fees. The Court granted Mr. Travis’s request for attorney’s fees totaling $28,244.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesExpedited HearingRemandJurisdictionForum-Selection ClauseMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
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
Case No. ADJ11131264
Regular
Mar 12, 2018

JAMES MCEWAN vs. ONTARIO REIGN, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal of an order denying a change of venue. The defendant sought to move the case from Oxnard to Riverside, citing proximity to the alleged injury site and witness travel distances. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the defendant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and did not adequately support its venue arguments under Labor Code section 5501.5(c). The Board noted that the defendant could refile a petition with sufficient witness information to support a claim of good cause under Labor Code section 5501.6(a).

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWCABLabor Code Section 5501.5Good CauseCumulative TraumaHockey PlayerOntario ReignGallagher BassettRiverside District Office
References
2
Case No. ADJ12088438
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

Sherice Bellamy vs. Ventura County Community College, Keen & Associates

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the prior order denying a change of venue. The Board found that the presiding judge incorrectly applied Labor Code section 5501.5 and that Labor Code section 5501.6, which governs petitions for change of venue, was the relevant statute. Consequently, the case was returned to the presiding judge to address the applicant's petition for change of venue under the proper legal framework. A dissenting opinion argued against removal, stating the applicant did not demonstrate good cause or irreparable harm, and could refile a properly supported venue change petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Labor Code Section 5501.6Principal Place of BusinessGood CauseSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDissenting Opinion
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 13,839 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