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. ADJ8160241, ADJ8160224
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

MIGUEL DOMINGUEZ vs. MYERS CONTAINER,LLC

This case concerns Miguel Dominguez versus Myers Container, LLC, consolidated under Case No. ADJ8160241 and ADJ8160224. A petition for removal was filed by the applicant and subsequently withdrawn. As a result of the withdrawal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition for removal. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMIGUEL DOMINGUEZMYERS CONTAINERLLCCCMSIADJ8160241ADJ8160224
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myer v. Americo Life, Inc.

Robert L. Myer appealed the trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act in favor of Americo Life, Inc. Myer raised fourteen issues on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to vacate the award. His contentions included claims that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority, the award was made in manifest disregard for the law, the award failed the fundamental rationality test, and it contravened public policy. Myer also challenged the award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court, finding no reversible error, affirmed the judgment of the trial court, upholding the arbitration award and the subsequent confirmation.

ArbitrationContract LawNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Missouri State LawAppellate ReviewArbitration Award ConfirmationRescissionRestitution
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Hanjin Container Lines, Ltd.

The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) petitioned the District Court to confirm and enforce arbitration awards totaling $21,000 against Hanjin Container Lines (HCL) and Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. (Hanjin). These awards stemmed from violations of the “Rules on Containers,” which are part of the ILA-New York Shipping Association (NYSA) collective bargaining agreement, mandating the use of ILA longshoremen for container work. Hanjin challenged the awards, asserting that HCL was not bound by the agreement for earlier awards and that the Rules had been declared illegal by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The Court granted ILA’s petition, determining that Hanjin waived jurisdictional objections by participating in arbitration and that various stays issued by the FMC and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals kept the Rules in effect during the period the awards were issued.

Arbitration Award EnforcementLabor LawShipping ActContainer RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Maritime CommissionJurisdiction WaiverPublic PolicyJudicial StaysWork Preservation Agreement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Atlantic Container Line, GIE

The Secretary of Labor alleged that Atlantic Container Line (ACL) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by involuntarily retiring employees at age 62, while ACL contended these retirements were exempt under ADEA § 4(f)(2). The court had previously denied summary judgment, noting factual questions regarding whether a 1974 amendment to ACL's pension plan constituted a subterfuge to evade the ADEA and if ACL relied in good faith on administrative regulations. Upon review of stipulated facts, the court found no evidence of subterfuge in ACL's plan amendment, which aimed to create promotional opportunities and harmonize retirement ages. Furthermore, ACL successfully established a good faith defense under the Portal-to-Portal Act, having relied on official administrative regulations despite conflicting advice from a Department of Labor representative. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ActPension PlanSubterfugeGood Faith DefenseSummary JudgmentMandatory RetirementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myer v. Callahan

The case involves pro se plaintiff Turner Myer III seeking judicial review of a Social Security Administration (SSA) decision denying disability benefits. The defendant, SSA, moved to dismiss due to untimely filing. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting dismissal because Myer failed to file within the statutory period, didn't request an extension, and equitable tolling was deemed inapplicable. The District Court reviewed Myer's objections to this recommendation, finding them without merit. The court concluded that Myer's previous attempts to file in other district courts did not justify equitable tolling due to his subsequent inaction and the absence of court misconduct or threats. Consequently, the District Court overruled Myer's objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityEquitable TollingUntimely FilingSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantPrisoner LitigationFifth CircuitMagistrate Judge ReportDistrict Court Order
References
34
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. E2020-01123-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2022

Melanie Miller Hollis v. Charles Myers Hollis, Jr.

This appeal stems from a divorce case between Melanie Miller Hollis (Wife) and Charles Myers Hollis, Jr. (Husband) in Tennessee. Wife challenged the trial court's classification of Husband's "book of business" as future income rather than marital property, while Husband raised issues concerning child support, alimony, and marital estate division. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, upholding the property classification, child support award of $8,516 per month for their two special needs children, and alimony in futuro of $6,210 per month for Wife. The court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine and award Wife her reasonable attorney's fees incurred on appeal related to child support and alimony issues.

divorcemarital propertychild supportalimonyfinancial advisorbook of businessintangible assetsequitable divisionspecial needs childrenspousal support
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Pension Fund, Local One Amalgamated Lithographers of America

The plaintiff, Mr. Myers, challenged the defendant Pension Fund's decision to provide him with a withdrawal benefit instead of a monthly pension. Myers had left the lithographic industry in 1973 and opted for a vested pension, but the Fund later denied his monthly pension, alleging he returned to the industry without proper notification or resuming contributions. Myers' claims of violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act and New York General Business Law were dismissed, with the latter preempted by ERISA. The court also found that the specific ERISA vesting provisions cited by Myers did not apply to the Fund. However, because new affidavits presented by Myers indicated that one of his employers, ASL, might not be part of the lithographic industry—evidence not considered by the Fund's Trustees—the court remanded the case. The Fund is directed to re-evaluate Myers' eligibility based on whether ASL or Towanda (another employer) are indeed part of the lithographic industry.

ERISAPension BenefitsVesting ProvisionsSummary JudgmentRemandEmployee BenefitsAntitrust LawsState Law PreemptionLithographic IndustryWithdrawal Benefits
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vargas v. Crown Container Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering action. The decedent, a garbage truck helper, sustained fatal injuries. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified. Summary judgment was granted to Crown Container Co., Inc., Crown Container Transfer Station Co., Inc., and Ashim Ali, based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. Additionally, summary judgment was granted dismissing the negligent spoliation of evidence claim against Crown Container Waste Services Corp., as New York does not recognize such a cause of action. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied for remaining causes of action against Crown Container Waste Services Corp., due to triable issues of fact regarding its interrelationship with the employer and alleged faulty repair.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsNegligent Spoliation of EvidenceAlter EgoProximate CauseAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 493 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