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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The parents of Douglas Conkle sued his employer, Builders Concrete Products Manufacturing Company, and the manufacturer of a concrete batch plant, Dillon Steel, for damages resulting from his death. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the Worker's Compensation Act, and for the manufacturer, based on a 10-year statute of limitations for improvements to real property. The court of appeals affirmed. This court affirmed the summary judgment for the employer but reversed the summary judgment for Dillon Steel, finding a factual issue regarding whether the machinery was an 'improvement to real property' under TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.009, or merely component parts, thus remanding the case for further proceedings concerning the manufacturer.

Texas LawSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActWrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsImprovement to Real PropertyComponent PartsEmployer LiabilityManufacturer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. M1999-00021-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2000

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal by SW Manufacturing, Inc. against the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings in an employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge case brought by Andrew Fahrner. Fahrner argued that the discovery rule should extend to his claims, as he only became aware of the alleged retaliatory motive for his termination in March 1998, despite being discharged in November 1997. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, in Nashville, reviewed the case de novo and found no legal basis to extend the discovery rule to retaliatory discharge and discrimination claims. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations began when Fahrner received unequivocal notice of his termination in November 1997, and his complaint, filed in December 1998, was therefore untimely. The Court reversed the trial court's decision, granting SW Manufacturing's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleMotion for Judgment on PleadingsAppellate ReviewAccrual of Cause of ActionUnequivocal Notice of TerminationTennessee Court of AppealsTort Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1969

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Curtis A. Davis, with a pre-existing 70% disability, sustained a new injury in August 1967 while employed by Hedges Manufacturing Co. The trial court found Davis 30% permanently partially disabled from the 1967 injury and 100% permanently and totally disabled from the combined injuries, awarding benefits against Hedges/Aetna and the Second Injury Fund. The initial judgment was set aside and amended due to incorrect computation of liability and credits for temporary total disability payments. The amended judgment awarded Davis $5,040.00 from Hedges Manufacturing Co. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and $8,818.00 from the Second Injury Fund. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, overruling assignments of error regarding credit for temporary total disability payments and computation method.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurer LiabilityPre-existing Condition
References
6
Case No. 14-14-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2015

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Joseph Favalora, an employee of Katy Springs & Manufacturing, Inc., suffered injuries while working on a manufacturing line when an unsafe pay-off reel malfunctioned, causing a wire to strike him. A jury found Katy Springs liable for negligence and awarded Favalora compensatory damages, including past and future mental anguish. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting the $100,000 award for future mental anguish, finding insufficient evidence to support it. The court, however, upheld the jury's findings on negligence, causation, and awards for past medical expenses and physical impairment.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityUnsafe EquipmentCausationDamagesMedical ExpensesMental AnguishPhysical ImpairmentJury Verdict
References
94
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Jose Luis Lerma Alvarado sued Farah Manufacturing Company for retaliatory discharge, alleging a violation of Article 8307c after he filed a worker's compensation claim. During the trial, Alvarado presented testimony from an undisclosed rebuttal witness, Jacqueline Arrambide, which Farah objected to but the trial court allowed. The jury found in favor of Alvarado, awarding significant damages. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court's decision, citing reversible error in the admission of the undisclosed testimony. This court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, ruling that the trial court erred by admitting Arrambide's testimony without a strict showing of good cause, thereby upholding the mandatory nature and automatic sanction of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215(5) regarding discovery disclosures.

Discovery Rule 215(5)Rebuttal WitnessUndisclosed Witness TestimonyGood Cause ExceptionSanctions for Discovery AbuseRetaliatory DischargeWorker's Compensation ClaimAbuse of DiscretionPretrial DisclosureTrial by Ambush
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Andrew Fahrner sued SW Manufacturing, Inc. for retaliatory discharge and employment discrimination, alleging he was fired after a work-related injury despite the employer citing a reduction in force. The defendant sought dismissal based on the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court denied dismissal by applying the "discovery rule," but the Court of Appeals reversed. This Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' outcome on the discovery rule but clarified that the rule can apply to such cases, though it found Fahrner's action accrued on the date of unequivocal termination notice. Crucially, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, instructing the trial court to assess whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should toll the statute of limitations, distinguishing it from the discovery rule. The court emphasized that merely disputing the employer's stated reason for termination is insufficient to invoke equitable estoppel.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleEquitable EstoppelFraudulent ConcealmentWorkers' Compensation LawTennessee Human Rights ActAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Raphael Mera, an employee of Adelphi Manufacturing Co., Inc., was injured while operating a power press and accepted workers' compensation benefits. Mera and his wife subsequently sued Adelphi, alleging intentional harm by instructing employees to operate presses with removed safety guards. Adelphi moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the order was reversed. The court held that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for employee injuries, and by accepting benefits, Mera forfeited his right to a common-law tort action. The court also found the allegations insufficient to meet the exception for intentional harm, and the claim was further barred by res judicata.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionRes JudicataAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury LitigationEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissOccupational InjuryNew York Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 822 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