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
Mar 09, 1981

Rondinelli v. Corapi

Plaintiff George Rondinelli, a member and Chairman of Local 3, sued Local 101 and its president, Corapi, under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). Rondinelli sought membership in Local 101, arguing he was denied his rights, and requested declaratory and injunctive relief to be admitted. His application followed his transfer to a new job at Brooklyn Union Gas Company that required him to work partly in Local 101's jurisdiction, and he aimed to challenge Corapi's leadership. Local 101 requested details about his job and reasoning for seeking membership, which Rondinelli refused to provide, claiming an automatic right to join. The court found that Local 101's inquiries were reasonable and in good faith due to the ambiguities of his job classification and existing union affiliation. Consequently, the court ruled that Rondinelli failed to meet membership requirements and dismissed his complaint, granting judgment to the defendants.

LMRDAUnion Membership RightsLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefCollective BargainingBargaining UnitUnion By-lawsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDistrict Court
References
2
Case No. M2017-02399-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2018

John R. Deberry v. Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation

John R. DeBerry brought a retaliatory discharge claim against his employer, Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation (CEMC), alleging termination for claiming workers' compensation benefits. The trial court initially found in favor of DeBerry, concluding that his termination was retaliatory and CEMC's stated reason was pretextual. However, the Court of Appeals for Tennessee at Nashville vacated and remanded the judgment. The appellate court expressed concern that the trial court had adopted almost all of the plaintiff's proposed findings and conclusions without an oral ruling, raising doubts about the exercise of independent judicial judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion, stressing the importance of a trial court's own deliberations.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewIndependent JudgmentTrial Court ErrorVacate and RemandPretextBurden of Proof
References
13
Case No. 01A01-9806-CV-00284
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1999

Hauskins v. Tri-County Electric Membership

Randy Gene Hauskins, a framing carpenter, sustained severe injuries including paraplegia after accidental contact with a 7200-volt power line while working on a new home in Sumner County. His employer, a subcontractor of Coates Construction Company, had begun framing work without notifying Tri County Electric Membership Corporation, the owner of the power lines, contrary to safety statutes. A jury found Mr. Hauskins 100% at fault and Tri County faultless. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued against the admission of evidence concerning the employer's actions due to worker's compensation immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, clarifying the distinction between "cause in fact" and "proximate cause" and confirming that an immune employer's actions could be considered to negate a defendant's cause in fact.

Electrical InjuryHigh-Voltage LinesConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityCause in FactProximate CauseJury InstructionsNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. Duck River Electric Membership Corp.

James Randall Slaughter, an employee of Osborne Electrical Contractors, Inc., suffered severe electrical shock injuries while working on lines for Duck River Electric Membership Corporation (DREMC). Slaughter filed a negligence lawsuit against DREMC, which claimed immunity as a statutory employer under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially denied, but later granted, summary judgment for DREMC and Osborne, finding DREMC was a statutory employer. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that DREMC's right to control Osborne's work and the nature of the work performed made DREMC a statutory employer, thus barring Slaughter's common law tort action under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimExclusive Remedy ProvisionRight to Control TestIndependent Contractor StatusThird-Party ComplaintElectrical AccidentPersonal Injury
References
18
Case No. M2000-00453-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2002

James Randall Slaughter v. Duck River Electric Membership Corporation

This case concerns an appeal from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Duck River Electric Membership Corporation (DREMC) and Osborne Electrical Contractors, Inc. The plaintiffs, James Randall Slaughter and Beverly Slaughter, filed a negligence suit after James Randall Slaughter, an employee of Osborne, suffered severe electrical shock injuries while working for DREMC. DREMC argued it was a statutory employer under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, thus immune from tort claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that DREMC was indeed a statutory employer due to its right to control Osborne's work and the similarity of work performed. Consequently, workers' compensation benefits were deemed the exclusive remedy, barring the plaintiffs' common law tort action.

Workers' Compensation ActStatutory EmployerSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimEmployer ImmunityRight to ControlIndependent Contractor RelationshipElectrical AccidentPersonal InjuryTennessee Appellate Court
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niemyjski v. Schlessinger

This case involves an action to recover a death benefit for Joseph Niemyjski from the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union. Niemyjski was a member of a local union affiliated with the central International Union, which governed local unions and their members through by-laws. Originally, the union's constitution provided for death benefits, contingent on certain membership requirements and payment of special assessments. However, these provisions were repealed prior to Niemyjski's death. The court noted no evidence that Niemyjski paid death benefit assessments or complied with the claim submission requirements. The court emphasized that members are bound by the union's constitution and its amendments, especially since Niemyjski continued membership after the repeal. The judgment was reversed, and the complaint dismissed, finding that no death benefit provision existed at the time of death and no compliance with conditions precedent.

Death BenefitLabor UnionConstitutional AmendmentBy-lawsMembership RightsContract LawCondition PrecedentFraternal OrganizationBenefit FundWorkers' Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cleary v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a substitute school teacher, sought retroactive membership in the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System after the enactment of Retirement and Social Security Law § 803. Respondent, her employer, denied her application. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court granted, annulling the Hearing Officer's determination due to lack of a rational basis. The respondent appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Hearing Officer's finding that the petitioner participated in a procedure requiring a formal decision to join the retirement system lacked a rational basis, as the evidence presented by the respondent, including W-4 forms, personnel notations, and general office practice testimony, was insufficient to meet the burden.

Retroactive membershipTeachers’ Retirement SystemCPLR article 78Rational basis reviewStandard office practiceEvidence sufficiencyConstitutional challengeSubstitute teacherPublic retirement systemNew York law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stevens v. Anatolian Shepherd Dog Club of America, Inc.

Rhea C. Stevens, an Anatolian Shepherd dog breeder, sued the Anatolian Shepherd Dog Club of America, Inc. (ASDCA) for specific performance, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees after her membership application was denied, despite her membership fee being retained. Stevens claimed a breach of contract, arguing that the ASDCA had offered membership to dog owners and she met the criteria, while the club contended sponsor endorsements were required by its bylaws. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against Stevens, ordering only a refund of her $30 membership fee. On appeal, Stevens raised five issues, challenging the trial court's refusal to recognize a contract, its holding that contract law did not apply, its failure to award specific performance, denial of a new trial, and refusal to award attorney’s fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in declining jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a voluntary non-profit association, as Stevens failed to demonstrate sufficient pecuniary harm to warrant judicial intervention.

Contract LawVoluntary AssociationsJudicial Non-InterferenceMembership DisputeSpecific PerformanceAttorney's FeesAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewNon-Profit OrganizationDog Breeders
References
21
Case No. W2018-00116-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2019

United Supreme Council AASR SJ v. Fredrick McWilliams

This case involves a derivative action filed on behalf of a non-profit corporation, United Supreme Council AASR SJ (USC), by three of its former members, Ralph Slaughter, A. K. Wilkins, and Joseph Williams. They alleged embezzlement and misappropriation of funds by USC directors Fredrick McWilliams, Dreary Vaughn, Arvin W. Glass, and Wilbert Curtis. Following the filing of the suit, the plaintiffs established a competing organization, which resulted in the surrender of their membership rights in USC. The trial court granted summary judgment to USC, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain the derivative action due to their loss of membership and a conflict of interest arising from the competing organization. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, emphasizing the requirement of continuous membership and the inability of the plaintiffs to fairly and adequately represent USC's interests given their antagonistic relationship and the formation of a rival corporation.

Derivative ActionNon-profit CorporationStandingContinuous Ownership RuleConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMasonic OrganizationEmbezzlement AllegationsMisappropriation of Funds
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,249 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