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

National Propane Gas Ass'n v. United States Department of Transportation

This case involves a challenge by plaintiffs National Propane Gas Association, Northwest Butane Gas Co., and Huffhines Gas, Inc. against the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). The plaintiffs sought to stay and enjoin the enforcement of RSPA's "Final Rule" and its interpretation of the "Attendance Regulation," alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Both regulations pertain to safety requirements for cargo tank motor vehicles transporting liquefied compressed gases, particularly concerning emergency discharge control systems and operator presence during unloading. The court sided with the defendants, upholding both the Final Rule and RSPA's interpretation of the Attendance Regulation. The ruling affirmed that RSPA's actions were within its statutory authority, were not arbitrary or capricious, and complied with the RFA, based on reasoned decision-making in response to widespread industry noncompliance and potential safety risks.

Regulatory challengeadministrative lawhazardous materialscargo tanksliquefied gasespropanepublic safetyemergency discharge controloperator attendanceRSPA
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Independent Union of Flight Attendants (IUFA) filed an action against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am) under the Railway Labor Act, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce an April 1, 1985 agreement or, alternatively, to maintain the status quo. A key dispute arose over 'Item 7' of the agreement, regarding pending lawsuits and grievances, with the union claiming its exclusion and Pan Am insisting on its inclusion. The National Mediation Board (NMB) is currently reviewing this interpretive dispute. The court denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that Pan Am was legally entitled to engage in self-help after exhausting statutory procedures, and that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The balance of hardships was found to favor Pan Am, and the action was stayed pending the NMB's definitive ruling.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSelf-HelpStatus QuoNational Mediation BoardIrreparable HarmBalance of HardshipsLabor DisputeUnion Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Local Lodge 197, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers

The Secretary of Labor initiated this action against Local Lodge 197 for violating the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The contention was that Lodge 197 denied member Charles McNally a reasonable opportunity to be a candidate for union office due to an unreasonable meeting attendance rule. The court reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment, first confirming McNally had exhausted internal remedies. It then determined that Lodge 197's attendance rule, which disqualified a significant portion of its membership, was an unreasonable qualification under section 401(e) of the Act. Consequently, the court granted the Secretary's motion, voided the election, and ordered a new election under federal supervision, simultaneously denying Lodge 197's cross-motion.

Labor LawUnion ElectionsSummary JudgmentEligibility RulesMeeting AttendanceLMRDAStatutory InterpretationDemocratic ProcessesUnion OfficeFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hernandez v. Carpet

The claimant, a sales manager, was injured in a one-car accident while driving home after attending a mandatory evening meeting for his employer in Jamaica, Queens. He had transported two co-employees from the meeting, dropping them off at the store and then another near his home on his direct route to West Haverstraw, New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined that the injury, sustained on the Sprain Brook Parkway, was compensable as it arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing that the injury did not meet the criteria for compensability. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s ruling, finding the employer’s arguments unpersuasive and stating that the stops to drop off co-employees on a direct route home from a required work function did not negate the compensable nature of the injury.

Compensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentTravel TimeEmployer Mandated MeetingCommuting AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate AffirmationSales Manager AccidentDual Purpose Trip
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County v. McCoy

This opinion addresses a motion for rehearing filed by Harris County, which argued that the court's original ruling on whether McCoy was on a special mission at the time of an accident conflicted with the Texas Supreme Court's decision in *Evans v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau*. The *Evans* case, a workers' compensation matter, clarified that attendance at a required safety meeting, if it's an integral part of the job, constitutes travel to work rather than a special mission, and thus falls under the 'coming and going rule.' The court agreed with Harris County, concluding that its prior holding was erroneous in light of the *Evans* precedent. Consequently, the court granted Harris County's motion for rehearing, sustained its points of error, and reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that McCoy was not on a special mission as a matter of law and the plaintiff should take nothing.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Mission DoctrineComing and Going RuleMotion for RehearingTexas LawEmployment InjuryScope of EmploymentAppellate DecisionReversal of JudgmentEmployer's Liability
References
1
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. 89 Civ. 1655 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1990

Fenderson v. INDEP. FED. OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

Plaintiffs, a group of flight attendants including new hires and crossovers, filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA), its officers, and Trans World Airlines (TWA). They alleged that amendments to IFFA's Constitution and Bylaws, specifically a one-year 'education and orientation period' and a $250 initiation/reinstatement fee, violated Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act by imposing conditions on membership not generally applicable to all members. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the one-year education and orientation period, finding it violated the RLA's requirement that membership be available on the same terms to all dues-paying employees. However, the court denied summary judgment concerning the $250 fee, concluding that it was uniformly applied and fell within the RLA's definition of permissible 'initiation fees' and 'reinstatement fees'.

Railway Labor ActUnion Security ClauseFlight AttendantsUnion Membership RightsInitiation FeesReinstatement FeesSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationVoting Rights
References
9
Case No. 75-H-1459
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1976

Airline Flight Atten., Etc. v. Tex. Intern., Etc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between airline flight attendants and Texas International Airlines concerning the Airline's unilateral mid-month flight schedule changes. The core legal question revolves around whether these actions constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which dictates different resolution procedures. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief, arguing for a major dispute that would require the Airline to maintain the status quo and negotiate. However, the District Court found the Airline's justification, based on the existing collective bargaining agreement and managerial prerogative, to be reasonable and made in good faith. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment for contract interpretation, and thus denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeStatus Quo ObligationSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMid-month Schedule ChangesInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentContract Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union

The plaintiffs, Carlyle Bernard and John Simino, members of Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their union from barring Bernard's candidacy for Recording Secretary. Bernard was disqualified due to a union bylaw requiring minimum meeting attendance, which he could not meet due to his work schedule. The plaintiffs argued that this rule was an unreasonable restriction on candidate eligibility under Title I of the LMRDA, thereby denying members equal rights to nominate and vote. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The decision highlighted that Title I primarily addresses direct discrimination in voting rights, not challenges to uniformly applied eligibility requirements, which are typically governed by Title IV's post-election enforcement by the Secretary of Labor. The Court also suggested the plaintiffs exhaust internal union remedies.

Union ElectionsLMRDA Title ILMRDA Title IVCandidate EligibilityMeeting Attendance RulesPreliminary InjunctionEqual RightsUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesJudicial Review
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 12,401 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