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

Bone v. Saturn Corp.

This workers' compensation case addresses the calculation of weekly compensation rates for gradually occurring injuries. The employer, Saturn Corporation, appealed a trial court's decision, arguing against the application of the 'last day worked rule' when the employee, Denise Bone, had provided actual notice of her injury prior to missing work. The Supreme Court analyzed conflicting appellate panel decisions and ruled that the 'last day worked rule' is not applicable in such circumstances. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was modified to base the compensation rate on the date the employee reported her injury (February 7, 1997), rather than the date of her surgery.

Workers' Compensation RateGradually Occurring InjuryLast Day Worked RuleActual Notice of InjuryRepetitive Use InjuryAverage Weekly WagePermanent Partial DisabilityEpicondylitisTendonitisMedical Impairment Rating

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Earthworks Unlimited, Inc.

This workers' compensation case addresses whether Steve D. Barnett's claim for carpal tunnel syndrome benefits against Earthworks Unlimited, Inc. is time-barred by the statute of limitations. Barnett was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in April 2002 and verbally notified his employer, but did not fully understand its work-related and permanent nature until May 2003. His employment was terminated in January 2003 for unrelated reasons, and he filed his claim in June 2003. The trial court found the claim timely, and the Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying that for gradually occurring injuries, the one-year statute of limitations begins on the last day the employee worked, unless explicit notice of a compensable, work-related injury was given with full knowledge. As Barnett lacked full knowledge of his injury's nature until after his last day of employment, the last-day-worked rule applied, making his claim timely.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsGradual InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeLast-Day-Worked RuleNotice RequirementPermanent Partial DisabilityRepetitive Motion InjuryTennessee LawMedical Impairment Rating

References

Case No. 13-13-00463-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Argonaut Southwest Insurance Co.

This case addresses the dismissal of a workers' compensation action due to an untimely filed notice of appeal. Durvis C. Taylor mailed his notice on the 21st day after the Industrial Accident Board's decision, which was received on the 23rd day. The court examined whether this complied with Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated, Article 8307, Section 5, and the precedent set by Ward v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. The Ward rule deems a notice timely if mailed at least one day before the 20-day statutory period and received within ten days after. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding Taylor's mailing on the last day of the extended period (due to Memorial Day) did not meet the Ward rule's "one day before" requirement, and declined to further extend the rule to encompass mailing on the last day of the period as allowed by certain appellate rules.

Workers' CompensationTimely FilingNotice of AppealStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ProcedureMailbox RuleLegal Holiday Extension

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ackerson v. Clarendon National Insurance Co.

Appellant, an injured worker, sought review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Appeals Panel denied his claim as untimely. The panel ruled his request for review was filed one day past the fifteen-day deadline, calculating receipt of the Commission's decision on Labor Day, September 4, 2000. The district court affirmed this decision. On appeal, the court examined the Commission's rules on computing time periods, specifically regarding deemed receipt and non-working days. It concluded that because Labor Day was not a working day, the deemed receipt date should have been extended to the next working day, September 5, making the appellant's filing timely. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppeal DeadlineDeemed ReceiptStatutory InterpretationLabor DayTimelinessRemandAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

Claimant, a psychiatric social worker, was reclassified as an 'independent contractor' by Brooklyn Center for Families in Crisis, Inc. for the last six months of her employment, receiving an hourly rate. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the Center exercised sufficient direction and control over her work, establishing her status as an employee and thus her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Despite the re-designation, the claimant continued to treat the same patients in the same manner on the Center’s premises, worked under a supervisor, and the Center established the fees. The court affirmed the Board’s ruling, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant and similarly situated individuals were employees of the Center.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPsychiatric Social WorkerEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEmployee BenefitsEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewLabor Law

References

Case No. W2004-00283-WC-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 16, 2004

Denny Lee Rhodes v. Capital City Insurance Company and James Farmer, Director, Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund

The central issue in this case was whether permanent total disability benefits should begin from the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) or the last day the employee was able to work due to the injury. The trial court determined that benefits should be paid from the last day of work, prompting the employee to appeal, contending he was totally disabled from his MMI date. He argued that he should collect benefits for the period between MMI and when he ultimately stopped working, as he only worked in a limited capacity. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that the employee continued to earn income during the disputed period. The court found no evidence presented that he was unemployable in the general workforce, thus concluding he did not meet the statutory definition of permanent total disability until he ceased working entirely.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementEmployabilityStatutory InterpretationHeart AttackLogging IndustrySecond Injury FundAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Robert Garcia, a pipe-fitter's helper, filed a workers' compensation claim after a work-related injury. He was subsequently terminated by Wyler Industrial Works, Inc., who claimed it was due to a low budget and his unavailability for Saturday work. Garcia sued for wrongful termination, and a jury found Wyler discharged him for filing the claim, awarding $60,000 in damages. Wyler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for both liability and damages, as well as errors in prejudgment interest and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support Garcia's termination due to his workers' compensation claim and the damage award, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule

References

Showing 1-10 of 20,291 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Bone v. Saturn Corp.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Earthworks Unlimited, Inc.

References

Case No. 13-13-00463-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Argonaut Southwest Insurance Co.

Workers' CompensationTimely FilingNotice of AppealStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ProcedureMailbox RuleLegal Holiday Extension

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ackerson v. Clarendon National Insurance Co.

Workers' CompensationAppeal DeadlineDeemed ReceiptStatutory InterpretationLabor DayTimelinessRemandAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Forbes

References

Case No. W2004-00283-WC-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 16, 2004

Denny Lee Rhodes v. Capital City Insurance Company and James Farmer, Director, Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementEmployabilityStatutory InterpretationHeart AttackLogging IndustrySecond Injury FundAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule

References

Showing 1-10 of 20,291 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.