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
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Leake

Appellee H. B. Leake sued appellant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for a 1935 back injury. Leake filed his claim nine years later, alleging "good cause" due to initial belief of trivial injury and doctors misdiagnosing his condition as rheumatism, a claim supported by a jury verdict. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Leake’s testimony, even when viewed favorably, failed to establish "good cause" for the extensive delay. The court highlighted that Leake knew of his injury from the start, suffered continuous pain, and notably withheld injury details from his consulted physicians. Furthermore, a two-year period following a varicose vein operation lacked any documented "good cause" for continued delay in filing, solidifying the court's decision to render judgment for the appellant.

Delayed Claim FilingGood Cause ExceptionStatute of LimitationsWorkman's CompensationBack InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisPermanent Total IncapacityAppellate ReviewReversed and RenderedIndustrial Accident Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers

This case addresses a motion by the defendant, Seafarers International Union, to dismiss the third cause of action in a complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to induce its employees to violate a collective bargaining agreement and engage in a secondary boycott, thereby forcing the plaintiff to cease doing business with another entity. The core legal question is whether a conspiracy to commit acts prohibited by Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 187), which targets secondary boycotts, is actionable. The court reviewed previous Supreme Court decisions affirming the broad scope of Section 303. Ultimately, the court concluded that the third cause of action adequately states a claim for relief under Section 303. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottConspiracyMotion to DismissLabor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationUnion Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Corrections v. Jackson

Justice Levy dissents from the majority's decision, specifically on the second point of error concerning the lack of evidence for proximate cause. Levy argues that circumstantial evidence, including the appellee's testimony about a defective tool belt slipping and causing the shock, should be sufficient to sustain the jury's finding. Citing various precedents, Levy emphasizes considering evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court's judgment and would have affirmed the trial court's decision in all respects.

Proximate CauseCircumstantial EvidenceTool Belt DefectElectrical ShockJury FindingAppellate ReviewNo Evidence PointTrial Court JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

Mike Mandlbauer, injured in a forklift accident in 1992, had his claim disputed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after later medical findings contradicted an earlier MRI. A district court jury found Mandlbauer's current symptoms and disability were not a result of the 1992 injury. On appeal, Mandlbauer complained about the trial court's refusal to include a "sole cause" inferential rebuttal instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Mandlbauer, as the plaintiff, lacked standing to complain about the omission of a defense-oriented "sole cause" instruction. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Mandlbauer's other issues.

Jury InstructionsSole CauseInferential RebuttalStandingAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationProducing CauseTexas LawTrial Court ErrorHarmful Error
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Kandler

This case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's fall while washing exterior windows of a commercial building, leading to a Labor Law § 202 cause of action. An earlier order had granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding multiple triable issues of fact. These issues include whether the building owner mandated window cleaning, tacitly approved the plaintiff's work, acknowledged the subtenancy, provided safe interior window washing options, and if the building's anchor hooks met Industrial Code standards. The reversal means the plaintiff's cause of action can proceed.

Window Washing AccidentSummary Judgment ReversalLabor Law ComplianceBuilding Owner LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationsTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimSafety RegulationsPremises Liability
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,346 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