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. 2019-01-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2020

Spaulding, Linda v. Avants Operations, LLC

Linda Spaulding, an employee of Avants Operations, LLC, sought temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits and expedited authorization for prescribed medical treatment after sustaining injuries from a fall on a wet floor at work. Her TPD benefits were terminated when she declined available restricted-duty work, believing the employer could not accommodate her physician's restriction against working on slippery floors. The Court found Ms. Spaulding did not establish entitlement to TPD benefits, ruling her refusal to try the accommodated work was unreasonable. However, the Court affirmed her entitlement to ongoing medical benefits and urged prompt authorization of treatment for her compensable upper-extremity problems.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsRestricted DutyWorkplace FallJob AccommodationsUtilization ReviewCarpal Tunnel SyndromeKnee InjuryUpper Extremity Pain
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2009

Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Plaintiff James Tepperwien filed a Title VII action against his former employer, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., alleging same-sex sexual harassment by a co-worker, Yito Messina, and subsequent retaliation. The harassment included physical assault and sexually explicit remarks, which Tepperwien reported to management. Entergy moved for summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and a portion of the retaliation claim, finding sufficient factual disputes for trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to Entergy on the constructive discharge claim, concluding that the plaintiff's working conditions were not objectively intolerable.

Same-sex harassmentTitle VIIHostile work environmentRetaliationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentWorkplace discriminationSexual harassmentEmployer liabilityFederal court decision
References
50
Case No. 2014-05-0026
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2017

Thysavathdy, Sisouphahn v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations

Employee Sisouphahn Thysavathdy alleged a left shoulder injury from pulling tires while working for Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations. The authorized treating physician, Dr. Novak, found no specific work-related injury, while Dr. Vaughan, the employee's chosen physician, noted a multifactorial condition including pre-existing arthritis and a partial rotator cuff tear. The trial court, upholding the presumption of correctness for Dr. Novak's opinion, denied the claim due to insufficient evidence from the employee to establish a primarily work-related injury. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, concluding that the employee failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury arose primarily out of employment. Consequently, the employee's case was dismissed, and the trial court's order certified as final.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidenceTreating Physician PresumptionMultifactorial ConditionAppellate ReviewDenial of BenefitsEmployee-AppellantEmployer-Appellee
References
4
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17 v. Union Concrete & Construction Corp.

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO ("Local 17") filed a grievance against Union Concrete and Construction Corporation ("UCC") to compel arbitration regarding UCC's emergency snow removal work for Erie County in November 2014, alleging violations of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). UCC argued the work was not covered by the CBA's "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" definition, rendering the arbitration clause inapplicable. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation to grant UCC's motion for summary judgment and deny Local 17's. United States District Judge Richard J. Arcara conducted a de novo review and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings in their entirety, concluding that the emergency snow removal work did not constitute "Heavy and/or Highway Construction" under the CBA. Consequently, Local 17’s motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was denied, and UCC’s motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the closure of the case.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrabilitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationEmergency Snow RemovalHeavy ConstructionHighway ConstructionScope of Arbitration ClauseDe Novo Review
References
26
Case No. 07-15-00297-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2015

Dimock Operating Company, and Joe W. Dimock, D/B/A Dimock Petroleum v. Sutherland Energy Co., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a disputed oil and gas farmout agreement and its associated operating agreement. Appellant Dimock Operating Company challenges the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction in favor of Appellee Sutherland Energy Co., LLC, and its denial of Dimock's own application for a temporary injunction. The core dispute revolves around alleged breaches of contract by Sutherland, including unauthorized charges exceeding $2.4 million for "land" and "seismic" costs and the inclusion of litigation expenses as operating costs, which Dimock claims improperly delayed the "project payout" of the Hamrick #3 well. Dimock argues that the Hamrick #3 well reached payout in March 2014, entitling it to a 51% working interest. Dimock also contends that the trial court erroneously rewrote the contract's term from three years to an indefinite period and issued an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

Oil and GasFarmout AgreementOperating AgreementTemporary InjunctionBreach of ContractProject PayoutSeismic ExplorationLand CostsLitigation ExpensesStatute of Frauds
References
69
Case No. 04-14-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2014

Luis Alfredo Rosa and Myrna Lizzet Rosa v. Mestena Operating, LLC

The Appellants, Luis Alfredo Rosa and Myrna Lizzet Rosa, seek en banc reconsideration of a prior panel's decision that affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Mestena Operating, LLC. Luis Alfredo Rosa sustained an electrocution injury while repairing an AEP electrical pole on a third party's property, allegedly due to a malfunctioning lightning arrester on Mestena's adjacent mineral lease property. The panel previously applied Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, which limits a property owner's liability to independent contractors, finding that the Rosas failed to demonstrate Mestena exercised control over the work or had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. The Rosas argue that Chapter 95 should not apply because Mestena lacked a direct contractual relationship with Rosa's employer, the work was performed on another's property, and the panel's interpretation imposes an impossible burden while conflicting with established statutory construction rules and other appellate decisions.

Premises LiabilityStatutory ConstructionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95Independent Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityEn Banc ReconsiderationAppellate ProcedureActual KnowledgeControl over WorkContractual Relationship
References
35
Case No. 2019-05-0198
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Hopkins, Casey v. EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING CO.

Casey Hopkins, an employee, suffered a significant work injury in December 2016, leading to multiple reconstructive operations and treatment for PTSD with Dr. Greg Kyser. Employbridge, her employer, initially provided light-duty accommodation but ceased temporary disability benefits in November 2018. Hopkins sought additional temporary partial disability benefits, asserting that her medical restrictions, including "no factory work or work around machinery" from Dr. Kyser, were still in place and Employbridge failed to provide suitable work. The Court found Hopkins likely to prevail, holding she is entitled to the requested benefits because Employbridge could not return her to work within her restrictions. The Court ordered Employbridge to file a wage statement to calculate the specific amount owed.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical RestrictionsPTSDExpedited HearingWork InjuryReturn to WorkWage StatementMurfreesboroTennessee
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Construction Employers' Ass'n v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 450

The case involves The Dow Chemical Company and several contractors (Plaintiffs) suing Operating Engineers, Local 450 (Defendant) under Section 303 of the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful picketing at Dow's Freeport, Texas plant in March 1966, to force Ashley-Hickham Maintenance and Engineering Company to assign crane operation to Operating Engineers rather than Millwrights, violating Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the Act. The Defendant contended the picketing was for organizational purposes. The court found that while Millwrights claimed the work, it was not a genuine jurisdictional dispute warranting damages under Section 8(b)(4)(D) because the Millwrights never threatened to strike if the work was given to Operating Engineers. Consequently, the court found no violation by the Defendant and dismissed the case.

Labor disputepicketingjurisdictional disputeNational Labor Relations ActSection 303Section 8(b)(4)(D)Taft-Hartley Actcrane operationfeatherbeddingemployer remedy
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Turetzky-Santaniello v. Vassar Bros. Hospital

The claimant, a registered nurse, suffered two work-related back injuries in 1992 and 1996 but continued full-time work. She resigned in March 1998, effective April 24, 1998, to relocate to Massachusetts, undergoing emergency back surgery shortly after. Following her move, she secured a part-time nursing position, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board denied her reduced earnings benefits post-April 24, 1998, finding a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The claimant appealed, arguing the denial was erroneous due to a lack of medical reports restricting her work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that her reduced earnings were attributable to factors unrelated to her work-related injury, given her pre-surgery resignation plans and lack of medical evidence restricting work hours.

Reduced Earnings AwardVoluntary Withdrawal Labor MarketWork-Related InjuryBack SurgeryRegistered Nurse ClaimantMedical Report InsufficiencyCausal Relation DisabilityAppellate Division ReviewEmployment RelocationPart-Time Work
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13,163 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