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

United Employers Casualty Co. v. Curry

Joe Curry, the appellee, brought a workman's compensation suit against United Employers Casualty Company, the appellant, to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for total and permanent incapacity due to a back injury sustained on November 26, 1939, while employed by C. W. Sternberg. The jury found in favor of Curry, awarding 400 weeks' compensation. The appellant appealed, raising issues regarding Sunday labor, the refusal of a physical examination, jury instructions on partial incapacity and sole cause of incapacity, and the exclusion of the appellee's criminal record. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of the appellant's contentions.

Workman's CompensationPermanent IncapacityTotal IncapacityIndustrial Accident BoardSunday LaborPenal CodePhysical ExaminationJury InstructionsSole CauseCriminal Record Admissibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. United Employers Casualty Co.

This is an appeal in a compensation insurance case involving employee Elton Richardson (appellant) and United Employers Casualty Company (appellee). Richardson sustained accidental injuries on August 10, 1939, while employed by Ernest L. Mays, and claimed total and permanent incapacity. After the Industrial Accident Board made a final award, Richardson filed suit in the district court to set aside the award and recover compensation. The case was tried to a jury, which awarded Richardson $1,400 for the loss of the use of an arm. The appellate court found the jury's answers to special issues to be confused, inconsistent, and unsatisfactory, particularly regarding findings on total incapacity and the average weekly wage. Due to these inconsistencies and apparent confusion, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationJury ConfusionInconsistent VerdictAppellate ReviewRemand for New TrialTotal IncapacityLoss of Use of LimbAverage Weekly WageTexas LawIndustrial Accident Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers

An employer initiated a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against the United Packinghouse Workers of America and other labor organizations for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, citing strikes and work stoppages in New York in March 1948. The defendants moved to dismiss the action, challenging the court's subject matter and personal jurisdiction, and arguing that Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act was unconstitutional. They contended it exceeded Article III, Section 2 limitations, infringed upon the Tenth Amendment, and violated the Fifth Amendment's due process clause through discriminatory application to unincorporated labor organizations and improper service of process. The court, however, denied all motions. It affirmed that Congress, under the Commerce Clause, constitutionally created substantive federal rights for enforcing collective bargaining agreements and validly established federal jurisdiction and procedural rules for such suits, including service of process on labor organizations.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractFederal JurisdictionConstitutional LawDue ProcessCommerce ClauseTenth AmendmentFifth AmendmentLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06579 [243 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Board of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist. v. Public Empl. Relations Bd. of the State of N.Y.

This case addresses a challenge by the Board of Education of the Newburgh Enlarged City School District (petitioner) to a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found the district engaged in an improper employer practice by unilaterally transferring the work of counseling non-mandated students from its bargaining unit employees (school social workers and psychologists) to non-unit county social workers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed PERB's determination, concluding there was substantial evidence that the work was exclusively performed by unit employees and the reassigned tasks were substantially similar. The court dismissed the district's petition and granted PERB's counterclaim for enforcement of its remedial order. This affirms PERB's finding that the district violated the Taylor Law by not negotiating the transfer of bargaining unit work.

Public EmploymentImproper Employer PracticeCollective BargainingBargaining Unit WorkPublic Employment Relations BoardTaylor LawCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSchool Social Workers
References
10
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. United States

Plaintiff Deanna Dozier Park Cooper sued the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for emotional distress after a postal worker, Ronald Eudy, allegedly exposed his genitalia to her. Cooper claimed negligent hiring and retention of Eudy by the United States and sought to hold the government liable under a theory of respondeat superior, arguing Eudy was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Defendant, United States, filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, arguing lack of liability based on the discretionary function exception of the FTCA for hiring and retention decisions, and asserting that Eudy's alleged actions were outside the scope of his employment. The Court granted the Defendant's motions, dismissing the negligent hiring and retention claims due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim, finding Eudy's conduct was outside the scope of employment. A motion to stay discovery was also granted.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionRespondeat SuperiorDiscretionary Function ExceptionScope of EmploymentEmotional DistressPostal WorkerSummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 17,198 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