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. ADJ6743541, ADJ6769168
Regular
Nov 03, 2014

DEBORAH PRYOR vs. INSTITUTE FOR REDESIGNED LEARNING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SPECIAL NEEDS NETWORK, INC., ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision denying their contribution claim against Endurance Insurance Company. The arbitrator found that the applicant did not sustain a cumulative injury during her employment with Special Needs Network, insured by Endurance, and therefore Endurance was not liable. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied SCIF's petition, adopting the arbitrator's reasoning that there was insufficient evidence of injurious exposure at Special Needs to establish Endurance's liability. The Board concluded that the applicant's symptoms were due to prior cumulative trauma from employment at Institute for Redesigned Learning, not Special Needs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for ContributionCumulative InjuryDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5Injurious ExposureSubstantial EvidenceCompromise and Release Agreement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc.

Alicia Briggs, a pro se plaintiff, sued Women in Need, Inc. (WIN) for alleged violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, claiming unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and related medical conditions. Briggs went on medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy, gave birth via C-section, and was later informed she was terminated after requesting a specific shift upon her return. WIN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Briggs refused her assigned schedule. The Court denied WIN's motion, finding Briggs had plausibly alleged a prima facie case of discrimination, citing the close temporal proximity between her pregnancy and termination, and her qualifications for the role. The matter was recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of discovery and pre-trial matters.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissPrima Facie CaseCivil Rights ActFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewHigh-Risk Pregnancy
References
45
Case No. 2023-06-4955
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Kean, Carma v. NAVION BKE BELLEVUE, LLC

Navion BKE Bellevue, LLC, filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding permanent impairment from Ms. Kean’s work-related injury. After a hearing, the Court granted the motion, finding no permanent impairment. However, because the parties agreed the claim was compensable, the Court ordered Navion to provide continuing reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The Court dismissed Ms. Kean's claim for permanent disability benefits with prejudice but affirmed her entitlement to future medical benefits, the need for which must be determined at the time they are requested.

Summary JudgmentPermanent ImpairmentMedical Treatment BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceC-32 FormsMedical Records AdmissibilityWaiver of ObjectionCompensabilityTemporary Disability Benefits
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goff v. Whitehall Central School District

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Whitehall Central School District and its employees. The dispute centers on whether "snow days" should be included in the calculation of guaranteed minimum payment days for part-time bus drivers (180 days) and cafeteria employees (170 days), even if the employees have already met those minimums through other workdays. The school district denied a grievance, arguing that snow days only count if needed to reach the minimum. Special Term initially reversed the board's decision, asserting that snow days should always be included. However, this appellate court reversed Special Term's judgment, ruling that the contract's intent was to count snow days only when necessary to fulfill the assured minimum number of payment days, and not to provide additional payment once the minimum was achieved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSnow DaysEmployment ContractWage DisputeSchool DistrictArticle 78 ProceedingContract InterpretationGrievanceAppellate ReviewEmployee Rights
References
1
Case No. 03-23-00455-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Quinn Hamilton Harwood v. Kimberley Anne Harwood

Quinn Hamilton Harwood appealed a final divorce decree, contesting the award of spousal maintenance to his ex-wife, Kimberley Anne Harwood. The appeal focused on Kimberley's eligibility for maintenance due to an incapacitating physical disability (lymphedema) and the calculation of the spousal maintenance amount, which was based on Quinn's alleged intentional underemployment. The Court of Appeals affirmed Kimberley's eligibility for spousal maintenance, finding sufficient evidence of her incapacitating disability and minimum reasonable needs. However, the court reversed the spousal maintenance award, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by calculating the amount based on Quinn's earning potential due to intentional underemployment, as the Family Code does not authorize this method for spousal maintenance. The case was remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of the spousal-maintenance amount.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceAlimonyIncapacitating DisabilityLymphedemaIntentional UnderemploymentEarning PotentialChild SupportFamily LawAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 13-02-090-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Cheryl Ann Smith v. Gary Smith

Cheryl Smith, the appellant, appeals the trial court's award of spousal maintenance to Gary Smith, the appellee, in their divorce proceedings. The appellant challenges several findings of the trial court, including that the appellee lacks sufficient property, is unable to support himself due to an incapacitating physical disability, and that there is a causal link between his disability and his inability to secure appropriate employment. The background reveals that Gary suffered a cerebral aneurism in 1974, which resulted in a physical disability affecting his fine motor movements and causing severe headaches, preventing him from working. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, examining the evidence supporting the findings regarding Gary's disability, his inability to work, and his minimum reasonable needs. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of spousal maintenance.

DivorceSpousal MaintenancePhysical DisabilityIncapacitating DisabilityEarning AbilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexasCommunity Property
References
13
Case No. No. 07-19-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2020

Odelia Laura Caudillo v. Daniel Caudillo

Odelia Laura Caudillo appealed a divorce decree concerning spousal maintenance from Daniel Caudillo. She contended that the trial court erred by altering the start date and duration of spousal maintenance from an earlier email, which she argued constituted a final judgment. She also claimed the court wrongly determined her eligibility under Texas Family Code section 8.054(a)(1)(C) instead of 8.054(a)(2)(A), which pertains to disability, and that her disability warranted indefinite payments. The Court of Appeals found the email was not a rendition of final judgment, thus allowing the trial court discretion to modify the terms. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the spousal maintenance duration to seven years, even acknowledging Odelia's testimony regarding her disability, as the statute's language concerning indefinite payments for disability is discretionary. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, noting its finding that Odelia "will lack the ability to earn sufficient income to provide for [her] minimum reasonable needs" was sufficient.

Spousal MaintenanceDivorce DecreeDiscretionary RulingAppellate ReviewTexas Family CodeRendition of JudgmentPhysical DisabilityTemporary OrdersFinal DecreeAbuse of Discretion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.

Jorge-Cruz ("Plaintiff") sued AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Pasquale Cartalemi, Jr. ("Defendants") for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), specifically for unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and failure to pay spread of hours. Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims under Rule 12 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for minimum wage violation, and alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing the FLSA's motor carrier exemption applies to Plaintiff. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted it for the FLSA minimum wage violation claim, finding Plaintiff's average hourly wage exceeded the minimum. The court also denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, citing the need for discovery to determine if Plaintiff's interstate driving activity was a natural, integral, and inseparable part of his duties or if the goods transported were in the flow of interstate commerce.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageMotor Carrier ExemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(c) MotionRule 56 MotionInterstate CommerceWage and Hour Dispute
References
70
Case No. ADJ548925 (MON 0313676) ADJ2470845 (MON 0313677)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

Barry Robey vs. HERTZ CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a lower decision that awarded unapportioned permanent disability. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) apportionment of 50% of the applicant's left hip disability to a non-industrial arthritic condition was substantial medical evidence, despite the WCJ's finding that the AME's reasoning was "arbitrary." The Board emphasized that AME opinions on apportionment need only be based on reasonable medical probability, not certainty, and that the AME sufficiently explained his reasoning.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityNon-industrial CausationLabor Code Section 4663
References
0
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05147 [129 AD3d 897]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Cohen v. State of New York

This case concerns Fashawn Cohen, a former correction officer, who sued the State of New York and the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) for employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation under Executive Law § 296. Cohen sustained a work-related hand injury, received workers' compensation, and was subsequently terminated by DOCS for failing to demonstrate medical fitness to return to work. She alleged that the defendants discriminated by not providing reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the disability discrimination claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that Cohen's responses to the termination notice could reasonably be understood as a request for accommodation, and the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they engaged in a good faith interactive process to assess her needs and the reasonableness of the requested accommodation.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReasonable AccommodationRetaliationCivil Service LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTermination
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,197 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