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

Fort Worth Transportation Authority v. Thomas

Ricky C. Thomas, a bus driver for Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) and McDonald Transit, Inc., was terminated in August 2002 after injuring his back and taking FMLA leave followed by sick leave. Appellants cited a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision allowing termination for absences exceeding one year, excluding military leave. Thomas filed a grievance and then a lawsuit, arguing that FMLA leave should not count as an absence based on the Operator Handbook, which defined "absence" and explicitly excluded FMLA leave. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas, concluding that his discharge was not subject to arbitration under the CBA's management rights clause. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Operator Handbook's definition of "absence," which excludes FMLA leave, must be considered when interpreting the CBA. Consequently, Thomas was "absent" for less than one year when terminated, leading to a breach of contract by the appellants.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Employee TerminationGrievance ProcedureArbitration ClauseOperator HandbookAbsenteeism PolicyContract InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Case No. ADJ3434154
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

GARY ZIMMERMAN vs. LEPRINO FOODS, INC., MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Leprino Foods violated Labor Code section 132a by failing to place the applicant on a required union leave of absence. While the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant's termination was lawful based on a doctor's work restrictions, they awarded a 50% increase in compensation up to $10,000, plus costs, due to the Section 132a violation. However, the Board denied back pay, agreeing with the WCJ that lost wages were not caused by the employer's contract violation but by the lawful termination and the applicant's insufficient mitigation efforts. A dissenting commissioner argued for back pay, citing the discriminatory nature of the termination during the mandated leave and the lack of evidence for the WCJ's findings on misleading doctors and failed mitigation.

Labor Code section 132aLeprino FoodsMatrix Absence Management CompanyGary ZimmermanBrian Belanger D.C.permanent and stationary reportunion grievanceArbitratorback payreinstatement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Groth v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

This legal motion pertained to a request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division had previously denied reargument in the underlying case. The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, reasoning that the Appellate Division's order did not constitute a final determination as defined by the Constitution. Separate from this, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were also denied.

References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zachari

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The decision included an award of $10 costs. Justices Breitel, Rabin, Valente, Eager, and Steuer concurred with the decision.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedJudicial Concurrence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duralite Co. v. Local 222, Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, with an imposition of $10 costs. The decision was concurred by Justice Presiding Breitel, along with Justices Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente, and McNally.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedConcurring JusticesAppellate DivisionDenial of Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. 05-12-01102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Ronald Kinabrew v. Inergy Propane, LLC

Ronald Kinabrew sued Inergy Propane, LLC for retaliatory discharge after his termination, alleging it was retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Inergy contended the termination resulted from the neutral application of its leave-of-absence policy, as Kinabrew's absence exceeded the twelve-week maximum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Inergy, dismissing Kinabrew's claim. Kinabrew appealed, arguing there was a causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, and that Inergy's leave policy was not uniformly applied. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kinabrew failed to provide controverting evidence that Inergy's neutral leave policy was not uniformly enforced or that his termination was retaliatory.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentLeave of absence policyUniform enforcementCausal linkLabor codeEmployment lawMedical leaveTexas Court of Appeals
References
17
Case No. 2018-02-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2018

Morrison, Leonard v. Walmart

Leonard Morrison, a Walmart loader, sustained a back injury on September 2, 2017, leading to light-duty restrictions from Greeneville Urgent Care and Dr. Nicholas Grimaldi. Despite Walmart offering alternative duty, Morrison alleged violations of his restrictions and insufficient work hours, while supervisors claimed he unilaterally violated restrictions and took unexcused absences. Morrison's request for a leave of absence due to pain was denied by Walmart, citing a lack of medical proof, resulting in his termination for not calling in during the pending leave period. He sought temporary disability benefits, arguing Walmart's non-compliance and his pain-induced inability to work full-time. The Court ultimately denied Morrison's request, finding insufficient evidence to prove entitlement to either temporary total disability, due to the absence of expert medical opinion, or temporary partial disability, as his self-limited hours and failure to adhere to company policy justified his termination.

Temporary Disability BenefitsBack InjuryWork RestrictionsUnexcused AbsencesTerminationMedical OpinionCausal ConnectionWorkplace RulesExpedited HearingWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,296 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