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. M2016-01109-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

David R. Smith v. The Tennessee National Guard

This case involves a military service member's claim against the Tennessee National Guard pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-208. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, a decision affirmed in previous appeals based on sovereign immunity and the accrual date of the claim. In this third appeal, the Court of Appeals considered the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-20-208 and whether Smith's cause of action accrued prior to July 1, 2014. The court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, holding that Smith's USERRA claim against the Tennessee National Guard did not accrue until July 1, 2014, when sovereign immunity was waived, thereby providing a judicial remedy. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

USERRA ClaimsSovereign Immunity WaiverCause of Action AccrualConstitutional LawSupremacy ClauseMilitary Employment RightsState Court JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawAppellate Procedure
References
36
Case No. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
5
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02981
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Cruz v. National Convention Servs., LLC

Plaintiff David Cruz appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendant National Convention Services, LLC, dismissing his complaint for injuries sustained at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in 2015. Cruz, an employee of NYCCOC, alleged negligence by Vincent Torres and Anthony Scura, general employees of NYCCOC, claiming they were special employees of National, thereby making National liable. The Supreme Court ruled his claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy doctrine, finding Torres and Scura were not National's special employees. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that National did not supervise or direct the carpenters' work, and NYCCOC remained responsible for their wages, assignments, and on-site supervision. Therefore, the court found, as a matter of law, that Torres and Scura were not special employees of National Convention Services, LLC.

Summary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive remedy doctrineSpecial employee doctrineAppellate reviewPersonal injuryNegligenceJavits CenterEmployer liabilityVicarious liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Foods, Inc. v. Rubin

Plaintiff National Foods, Inc. ("Hebrew National") filed a civil rights action against Rabbi Rubin, Director of the Kosher Law Enforcement Division of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hebrew National alleged abuse of state investigatory powers, claiming violations of the due process, establishment, free speech, and commerce clauses, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The complaint detailed events including a 1985 inspection, a subsequent altered report, a 1987 fine, public statements by Rubin, and a 1989 subpoena related to Hebrew National's Indianapolis plant. Defendant Rubin moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing that the allegations amounted to a state tort defamation claim. The court granted Rubin's motion, finding that Hebrew National failed to allege actionable constitutional deprivations under the "reputation-plus" standard for due process claims, presented no facts suggesting a theological dispute for the establishment clause claim, offered conclusory allegations for the free speech claim, and did not demonstrate a substantial burden on interstate commerce for the commerce clause claim.

Civil Rights Action42 U.S.C. § 1983Due Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentCommerce ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseMotion to DismissConstitutional LawState Official Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolomick v. New York Air National Guard

The plaintiff sought to challenge a military personnel decision concerning his qualifications as a medical pararescue technician in the New York Air National Guard, pursuing a claim under the Human Rights Law after an unsuccessful internal discrimination complaint. The court considered whether civilian courts possessed subject matter jurisdiction over such military employment decisions. Justice O'Brien concurred with the decision to affirm the lower court's ruling, asserting that civilian courts lack jurisdiction to interfere with military personnel matters. This position is supported by established legal precedent and policy reasons emphasizing the military's distinct hierarchical structure and the need to avoid judicial second-guessing of professional military judgments. The opinion also discussed the inapplicability of anti-discrimination statutes like Title VII and the ADEA to military personnel without explicit legislative intent, further reinforcing the principle of non-interference by civilian courts in military affairs.

Military Personnel DecisionsSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial ReviewNational GuardHuman Rights LawDiscrimination Complaint ProcedureMilitary LawFederal PreemptionCivilian Court InterferenceMilitary Efficiency
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yoda, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant National Union Fire's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, declaring the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage ineffective under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The appellate court unanimously modified this order, denying the cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery, citing the lack of conducted discovery. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of National Union’s motion to dismiss, noting lingering questions regarding the parties' intentions, the terms of the subcontract, and National Union’s delay in disclaiming coverage, which prevent a determination that Yoda and Riverhead were not additional insureds. Additionally, the employers’ liability exclusion in National Union's policy was found unavailing, as liability would be indirect if Yoda and Riverhead are determined to be additional insureds.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAdditional Insured StatusEmployers' Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewDiscovery ProceedingsSubcontract TermsLabor Law Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pennzoil Co.

In this worker's compensation insurance case, National Union, an insurance carrier for Four Flags Drilling Company, intervened in an underlying negligence suit filed by injured employee David Pfeifer against Pennzoil and other third parties. National Union sought to assert its subrogation rights for worker's compensation benefits paid. Pennzoil moved to strike the intervention, arguing National Union had waived its subrogation rights via a Certificate of Insurance. The trial court granted Pennzoil's motion to strike and sever. On appeal, National Union contended the trial court erred procedurally and evidentiarily in striking its intervention. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the waiver of subrogation clause in the certificate unambiguous and enforceable against Pennzoil. The court, however, could not definitively rule on National Union's claims against other defendants due to an insufficient record regarding their status in the underlying suit.

worker's compensationsubrogation rightsinterventionwaiverinsurance lawcivil procedureappellate reviewTexas lawmotion to strikeseverance
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,207 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