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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03146
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Barrett v. Magnetic Construction Group Corp.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal from an order denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and dismissing a third-party complaint. Anthony Barrett, an employee of MJE, Inc., was allegedly injured while working on a renovation project for Magnetic Construction Group Corp., a general contractor. Magnetic, facing a personal injury suit from Barrett, initiated a third-party action against MJE for contractual indemnification. Both Magnetic and MJE sought summary judgment regarding the existence and applicability of a written indemnification contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that issues of fact remained as to whether a written contract containing an indemnification provision was in effect between Magnetic and MJE on the date of the accident.

Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawSubcontract agreementRetroactive contractDemolition workPersonal injuryAppellate reviewQuestion of fact
References
5
Case No. 12-09-00390-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC v. Image Solutions, Inc.

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC (Trussell) appealed the denial of their motion for sanctions against Image Solutions, Inc. (Image). The underlying dispute originated from a worker's injury, where Image sought workers' compensation coverage through a policy procured by Trussell, which was subsequently denied due to the insurer's insolvency. Image then filed third-party claims against Trussell for negligence and breach of contract, leading Trussell to counterclaim for sanctions. Despite both parties acknowledging the necessity of an evidentiary hearing for the sanctions motion, none was conducted. The appellate court determined that Trussell waived its right to sanctions by failing to secure an evidentiary hearing and by participating in a non-evidentiary one. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the sanctions motion was affirmed.

SanctionsSummary JudgmentEvidentiary HearingWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queener v. Magnet Mills, Ins.

This case involves employees of Magnet Mills, Inc. seeking unemployment compensation after a strike led to the temporary closure of the plant. The Commissioner of Labor denied their claims, asserting unemployment was due to a labor dispute and the employees did not meet statutory exceptions. The Chancery Court reversed this decision in favor of the employees. On appeal, the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Green, affirmed the Chancellor's ruling, providing a narrow interpretation of "grade or class" in the unemployment compensation statute to mean an organized, cohesive group, thereby qualifying non-striking employees for benefits. The Court also modified the decree regarding attorney fees, stating they must be approved by the Board of Review rather than directly ordered by the court.

Unemployment compensationLabor disputeStrikeGrade or classStatutory interpretationEligibility for benefitsAttorney feesJudicial reviewAdministrative lawTennessee law
References
8
Case No. 08-05-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

in Re: Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company

In this original proceeding in mandamus, Relator Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company sought to overturn a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute involved Jose Gomez, a former employee, who sued Phelps Dodge for age discrimination and retaliatory discharge after he was laid off following a workers' compensation claim. Phelps Dodge argued Gomez was bound by an arbitration policy in an employee handbook. The Court of Appeals referenced a factually similar prior case, In re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co., and concluded that the company's Problem Solving Procedure did not constitute an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the appellate court denied mandamus relief, upholding the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbooksAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewDenial of Relief
References
1
Case No. 08-05-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, a Division of Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. v. Jose Gomez

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company against its former employee, Jose Gomez. Gomez, a Spanish speaker, alleged he was unaware of the company's arbitration policy in the employee handbook and claimed his termination was retaliatory for filing a workers' compensation claim and discriminatory due to his age, violating Texas Labor Code Chapter 21. The Court of Appeals, citing its previous decision in Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co. v. Chavelle, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and mandamus was the appropriate method of recourse.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimArbitration PolicyInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbookTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration Act
References
3
Case No. 225 S.W.3d 601
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co.

Alfredo Chavelle, a former mechanic at Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, filed a worker's compensation claim following a job-related injury. Subsequently, he was laid off and believed his termination was due to age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Chavelle initiated a lawsuit against Phelps Dodge, prompting the company to file a motion to compel arbitration based on its employee handbook's Problem Solving Procedure (PSP). The trial court denied this motion, leading Phelps Dodge to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court concluded that the PSP did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, ruling it was merely an internal grievance procedure that lacked the ability for parties to select independent arbitrators, as the arbitrators were exclusively company employees. Consequently, the appellate court denied the mandamus relief, affirming the trial court's decision.

Mandamus ReliefArbitration AgreementEmployment DisputeRetaliatory DischargeAge DiscriminationEmployee HandbookProblem Solving ProcedureInternal GrievanceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
21
Case No. 06-20-00056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Dipankar Chandra v. Leonardo DRS, Inc., and DRS Network & Imaging Services, LLC

Dipankar Chandra, representing himself pro se, sued his former employers, Leonardo DRS, Inc. and DRS Network & Imaging Services, LLC, alleging that his exposure to dangerous chemicals on the job caused his colon and prostate cancer. The trial court granted the defendants' traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, concluding that Chandra's claims were barred by the Texas Workers Compensation Act and the statute of limitations, and that he lacked proof of causation. Chandra appealed, but failed to present expert testimony or challenge the trial court's decision to strike his affidavit and attached articles as summary judgment evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment, finding that Chandra did not produce more than a scintilla of evidence to establish causation.

Toxic TortSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyChemical ExposureCancerAppellate ReviewTexas Workers Compensation ActStatute of LimitationsEvidence
References
29
Case No. 11-03-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. v. KPH-Consolidation, Inc., D/B/A Columbia Kingwood Medical Center

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. (Warren) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to KPH-Consolidation, Inc. d/b/a Columbia Kingwood Medical Center (Kingwood). The dispute arose from Warren's failure to pay rent on two lease agreements, leading Kingwood to sue for breach of contract. The trial court granted Kingwood's motion for summary judgment and ruled against Warren on his counterclaim regarding a breach of an Expense Sharing Agreement and breach of warranty. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Kingwood had proven its breach-of-contract claim and that Warren's counterclaim failed as a matter of law, partly due to an 'as is' clause in the Equipment Lease. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Warren's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.

summary judgmentbreach of contractlease agreementequipment leasecounterclaimbreach of warranty"as is" clauseappellate reviewabuse of discretionTexas law
References
8
Case No. 06 Civ. 3994(DC)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2007

BRENTWOOD PAIN & REHABILITATION SERV. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

The case examines whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) charges fall under the same discounted fee schedule rules as x-rays for multiple body parts under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, MRI service providers, contested the application of Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Radiology Ground Rule 3 to MRIs, arguing the rule specifically mentions only x-rays. Defendant insurance companies, supported by interpretations from the Department of Insurance (DOI) and WCB, asserted the rule's applicability to MRIs. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the insurers, deferring to the agencies' "rational" and "reasonable" interpretation. The court concluded that applying the discount rule to MRIs aligns with the No-Fault Law's objectives to control costs and prevent fraud, thus denying the providers' motions.

No-Fault InsuranceMRIX-rayFee ScheduleRadiologyWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceAgency DeferenceStatutory InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 140 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