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

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire State Restaurant & Tavern Ass'n v. New York State

Plaintiffs, Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association and Buies, Inc. d/b/a Dodester's, challenged New York State's Chapter 13 of the Laws of 2003, which regulated smoking in public places. They sought to declare the law unconstitutional, citing preemption by the OSH Act and unconstitutional vagueness regarding the distinction between bars and food service establishments and waiver criteria. The Court dismissed claims against New York State, its Department of Law, and Department of Health due to sovereign immunity. It found that the OSH Act did not preempt Chapter 13 as no federal standard explicitly covered environmental tobacco smoke. The Court also rejected the vagueness arguments. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment for the remaining defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Clean Indoor Air ActSmoking BanConstitutional LawPreemptionVagueness DoctrineSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentPublic Health LawOccupational Safety and Health ActEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke
References
32
Case No. 03-95-00522-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1996

Ben Robinson Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Its Members in Their Official Capacity, O.D. Kenemore, Ramon Class, Jack Garey, Royce Faulkner, Donna L. Snyder and John Nash

The Ben Robinson Company appealed a judgment concerning the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Extra-Hazardous Employer Program. The company was designated extra-hazardous following a fatal workplace accident involving its vice-president. The primary legal question was whether the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) preempted this state program. The appellate court rejected the Commission's arguments regarding mootness and the OSH Act's savings clauses. Ultimately, the court held that the Texas Program was preempted by the OSH Act where federal safety standards already existed, reversing the trial court's decision in part and remanding for a determination on attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationOccupational Safety and Health ActPreemptionExtra-Hazardous Employer ProgramMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesWorkplace SafetyTexas Court of AppealsEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alcantara v. Allied Properties, LLC

Plaintiff-workers filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging violations of the New York Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (NYDWPA) by new building owners. The plaintiffs sought restoration of their employment and back wages and benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court examined Garmon preemption, Machinists preemption, and Section 301 preemption. It concluded that none of these federal preemption doctrines provided a basis for removal to federal court. The court noted that the state court should be given the opportunity to construe the municipal law's provisions before federal intervention. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Preemption DoctrineNLRA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionNYDWPAWorkers' Protection ActMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCollective BargainingLabor Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hospital

This case addresses whether a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (d) concerning hot roofing material transporters, is preempted by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Plaintiff Charles J. Irwin suffered third-degree burns when a lugger without required safety features spilled hot tar on him during roofing work for Grove Roofing Co., Inc. at St. Joseph’s Hospital. The court concluded that the OSH Act does not preempt the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, citing that no Federal standard directly regulates the specific safety issue addressed by the State regulation (Section 18 (a)) and the OSH Act's savings clause (Section 4 (b) (4)) preserves state common law and statutory tort claims. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability, noting that a regulatory violation does not automatically establish negligence as a matter of law and that factual issues regarding comparative negligence remain.

PreemptionOSH ActLabor Law 241(6)Workplace SafetyIndustrial CodeRoofing AccidentsHot TarSummary JudgmentState RegulationFederal Preemption
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co.

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

City of San Antonio Acting by and Through City Public Service Board N/K/A CPS Energy v. Bastrop Central Appraisal District and Chief Appraiser Mark Boehnke

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 6,863 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