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?

This case involves a dispute between Local 333, a union, and McAllister Bros., Inc., an employer, regarding the arbitrability of an issue concerning an employee's medical examination. Local 333 moved to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was resolved by a Quick Settlement Committee, while McAllister cross-moved to compel arbitration and for sanctions. The court ruled that questions concerning the resolution or deadlock of the Quick Settlement Committee are procedural and must be decided by the arbitrator. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, and the cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted. McAllister's motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 was also denied.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementCollective BargainingMedical ExaminationProcedural ArbitrabilityQuick Settlement CommitteeUnion DisputeEmployer RightsFitness for DutyFed.R.Civ.P. 11 Sanctions
References
12
Case No. NO. 07-03-0405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

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

The State of Texas (TxDOT) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Bradley A. McAllister, who counterclaimed for damages after a fatal accident involving a TxDOT employee. TxDOT sought subrogation for workers' compensation benefits paid and asserted sovereign immunity. The appellate court found that McAllister's injuries were not caused by the 'use' or 'operation' of a State motor vehicle and that he failed to provide proper notice of his claim, thus sovereign immunity was not waived. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment awarding McAllister property damages and pain and suffering, rendering that he take nothing against the State, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The jury's finding of zero negligence against McAllister was upheld.

Texas LawSovereign ImmunityTort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimMotor Vehicle AccidentNegligence FindingOfficial ImmunityNotice of ClaimAppellate Procedure
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Shawn McAllister sustained severe and permanent back injuries after falling from a ladder while working as a dock builder at a demolition and reconstruction project in Port Chester, New York. His wife, Kimberly McAllister, seeks damages for loss of consortium. The plaintiffs allege negligence and claims under Section 240 of the New York State Labor Law and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) against defendants G & S Investors, Farmingdale Maintenance Services, Inc. (employer), and Loftus Contracting Corp. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court denied due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 240 claim on preemption grounds, holding that the state law is not preempted by the LHWCA.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentPreemptionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActNew York Labor Law Section 240Dock BuilderWorkplace SafetyStrict Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2002

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

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, entered on October 8, 2002. The judgment had previously dissolved the marriage, ordered the defendant to pay maintenance, and awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff. The appellate court affirmed the awards of maintenance and counsel fees, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the court modified the distributive award, agreeing with the defendant that the plaintiff's share of the net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence should be reduced. This adjustment was made because the trial court erroneously awarded the plaintiff the entire workers' compensation settlement instead of only the amount actually contributed as separate property towards the marital residence repair, resulting in a $1,739.78 reduction in the plaintiff's share.

Matrimonial lawMarital residenceDistributive awardWorkers' compensation settlementMaintenanceCounsel feesProperty divisionSpousal supportJudicial discretionAppellate review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff George Gaymon suffered personal injuries as a longshoreman on a barge in Port Newark in 1972, suing Prudential Lines, Inc. for negligence and unseaworthiness, and McAllister Bros., Inc. for negligence due to a collision. Prudential cross-claimed against McAllister and filed a third-party action against United Terminals, Inc. for indemnity. The initial claims against Prudential and United were dismissed. McAllister was found liable to Gaymon, and they settled. Prudential then moved to amend the judgment to recover attorneys' fees and costs from McAllister based on an implied warranty of workmanlike service in a towage contract. The court denied Prudential's motion, concluding that Ryan indemnity, which requires a shipowner's exposure to liability without fault due to a contractor's breach, did not apply since McAllister merely ran into the barge without creating an unseaworthy condition exposing Prudential to such liability.

Implied Warranty of Workmanlike ServiceLongshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActIndemnity ClaimTowage ContractMaritime LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureVessel CollisionNegligenceUnseaworthinessAttorneys' Fees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 1994

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which, upon reargument, affirmed an earlier decision granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the personal injury action. The case involved plaintiff Joseph S. Kawecki, who was injured by a co-employee (the defendant) on their employer's premises. The defendant sought dismissal based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6], which bars co-employee actions. The plaintiffs argued the defendant acted outside the scope of employment by violating traffic safety rules. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling the action was indeed barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, citing previous case law.

Personal InjuryCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentTraffic SafetyMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewAffirmed OrderDutchess County CourtReargumentJudicial Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Claimant, a principal accounting clerk for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was terminated for misconduct after falsely claiming disaster relief benefits following the September 11, 2001, attacks, despite continuing to receive his full salary. He applied to agencies like the American Red Cross and Safe Horizons as a 'displaced worker' and received approximately $1,900. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled he was disqualified from benefits due to misconduct, finding his actions reflected adversely on his employer's integrity and violated employee guidelines. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's contention of an honest belief in his entitlement to benefits presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductFalse ClaimDisaster Relief FraudEmployee TerminationEmployer IntegrityCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewNew York LawUnemployment Insurance Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff, an employee of British Airways, challenged the revocation of her identification hologram and access to Customs Service security areas, suing British Airways, Allan Smith, Robert Rubin, the Customs Service, and Frank Anton. She alleged First Amendment retaliation by Anton, conspiracy under Section 1985(3) against multiple defendants, and New York State Human Rights Law claims for gender discrimination. The court dismissed the Bivens claim against Anton due to qualified immunity, the Section 1985(3) claims for insufficient particularity and lack of state action, and the NYSHRL claims by declining supplemental jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim against the Customs Service for violating its own regulations regarding notice and hearing was not dismissed, based on the Accardi doctrine.

First Amendment RightsFifth Amendment RightsQualified ImmunityBivens ClaimSection 1985(3) ClaimConspiracyPublic Concern SpeechRetaliationCustoms Service RegulationsAccardi Doctrine
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case involves a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. The plaintiff, a longshoreman employed by Pittston Stevedoring Corp., sustained injuries in 1973 and subsequently accepted workers' compensation benefits paid by Pittston's insurer, Gulf Insurance Group. Under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, acceptance of an award operates as an assignment of the employee's rights to sue a third party to the employer (or its insurer) if the employee fails to commence suit within six months. The plaintiff's failure to file within this period resulted in the statutory assignment of his rights to Gulf. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to maintain the action, as Gulf is the proper party to sue. The motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice, allowing Gulf 30 days to commence its own action.

Personal injuryLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStandingAssignment of rightsSummary judgmentSubrogationThird-party actionGeneral Obligations LawInsurer's rightsEmployer liability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11 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