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
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Paris Packaging, Inc.

Vernon Moore filed suit against his former employer, Paris Packaging, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination. The trial court initially ordered arbitration in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement but later reversed its decision, finding Moore could not afford the arbitration costs. Paris Packaging sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to compel arbitration. The appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law regarding the union's obligation to cover arbitration expenses and the applicability of the collective bargaining agreement to all employees within the bargaining unit, regardless of union membership. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscriminationArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementMandamusAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessArbitration CostsUnion MembershipTexas Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1990

Narine v. Handler

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. 03-14-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This is a reply brief for Graphic Packaging, Inc. in an appeal concerning the application of Texas's franchise tax. Graphic Packaging argues that it properly used the Multistate Tax Compact's three-factor apportionment formula, contending that Texas Tax Code § 171.106(a) did not impliedly repeal the Compact's election or formula. The appellant asserts that the Compact is a valid and binding interstate agreement, not a mere uniform law, and that its mandatory election provision is unambiguous. Furthermore, Graphic Packaging argues that the Compact Election does not violate the Texas Constitution's anti-surrender tax power provision and that the franchise tax qualifies as an "income tax" under the Compact's broad definition.

Franchise TaxTax ApportionmentMultistate Tax CompactContract ClauseTaxation LawState SovereigntyStatutory InterpretationImplied RepealDue ProcessCommerce Clause
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Longo v. Graphic Packaging Corp.

The claimant, a maintenance mechanic, was employed from 1961 to 2001, last by Graphic Packaging Corporation, a subsidiary of Coors Brewing Company. In 2007, he was diagnosed with interstitial lung disease due to workplace asbestos exposure, establishing March 15, 2007, as the date of disablement for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined that Zurich American Insurance Company, the carrier for Coors, was liable, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. Zurich and Graphic Packaging appealed, contending they were denied the right to present proof and that there was a lack of substantial evidence regarding Coors' employer status and Zurich's liability. The court found that Zurich failed to present evidence despite notice and opportunities, and the claimant's uncontroverted testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination.

Asbestos exposureInterstitial lung diseaseOccupational diseaseWorkers' compensation benefitsEmployer liabilityInsurance carrier liabilitySubstantial evidenceUncontroverted testimonyWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweet v. Packaging Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of A Plus Environmental Services, was injured on October 19, 1995, while removing asbestos roofing for Monahan-Loughlin Inc., a subcontractor for Packaging Corporation of America. The injury occurred when a coworker slipped on wet asbestos fibers from previous rain, causing the full weight of a roof section to shift onto plaintiff. Plaintiff had previously complained about the slippery conditions without remedy. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, ruling that while the asbestos fibers were an integral part of the worksite, the precipitation causing them to be slippery was not, making the defendants' failure to remedy the condition actionable under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentSlippery ConditionsLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyAsbestos RemovalRoof WorkPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. 01-14-00439-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2015

Eihab Rajab Masoud v. Deborah Handler

Eihab Rajab Masoud, the appellant, failed to appear for his divorce trial, leading to a divorce decree. Masoud filed a motion for new trial, claiming lack of notice of the trial date, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Masoud argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial based on his claim of lack of notice. However, Appellee Deborah Handler presented evidence that she sent notice by certified mail, which was returned unclaimed, and that Masoud had a history of intentionally avoiding service. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence that Masoud was intentionally avoiding service of the trial notice, thus upholding the denial of his motion for new trial.

DivorceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice of TrialService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureFamily LawAbuse of DiscretionCraddock Elements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Paris Packaging, Inc.

Moore was terminated by Paris Packaging, Inc. after work injuries, leading him to sue for retaliatory discharge under Texas Labor Code § 451.001. Initially, a state court ordered arbitration, but later reconsidered, citing Moore's inability to pay. Despite a higher court ruling that Paris Packaging and UFCW Local 540 were to cover arbitration costs, the Union refused, leading Moore to sue them for breaching their duty of fair representation. This federal court examined cross-motions for summary judgment, focusing on whether Moore was obligated to exhaust the CBA's arbitration procedures for his statutory claim. The court ruled that Moore's state statutory rights are independent of the CBA, thus he was not required to exhaust contractual remedies, and the Union was not required to represent him in that specific statutory claim.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimsCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActTexas Labor LawEmployment Discrimination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Smith

Jane Doe, a lab technician trainee, was stuck by an HIV and TB infected needle while attempting to recap it. She asserts that surgeon John Smith, M.D., was negligent in the extraction, handling, and submission of the specimen, failing to ensure a safe container and adequate warning. Smith moved for summary judgment, contending he owed no duty to Doe, did not breach any duty if one existed, and that Doe's act of recapping the needle was an intervening cause. The court, however, determined that health professionals using needles have a duty to package them safely to mitigate risks for subsequent handlers. It found triable issues of fact regarding negligent packaging, Smith's supervisory responsibility over the nurse, and proximate cause, ultimately denying Smith's motion for summary judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceDuty of CareProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionVicarious LiabilityHospital PolicyInfectious DiseaseNeedle Stick InjuryHIV Transmission
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferber v. Des. L. Packaging Corp.

A sales manager, referred to as the Claimant, sustained injuries in a head-on collision while driving to get snow tires for his wife's car, which he occasionally used for business travel. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied benefits, ruling he had deviated from his employment. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding that maintaining the vehicle for potential business use was within the scope of employment, especially since he was en route to a work-related appointment afterward. The employer appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the Board properly found the claimant was within the course of his employment at the time of the accident.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentBusiness TravelVehicle MaintenanceWork-related InjuryAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityPersonal ErrandAccident Compensation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1999

Johnson v. Packaging Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting partial summary judgment to Kevin C. Johnson, a laborer who sustained serious injuries after falling 9.5 feet from a roof while performing asbestos removal. Johnson, employed by subcontractor A Plus Environmental Services, Inc., sued the general contractor, Monahan-Loughlin, Inc., and the building owner, Packaging Corporation of America, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence due to the absence of safety devices and exposed electrical wires. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, emphasizing that a fall from an elevation without safety devices constitutes a clear violation, irrespective of the precise cause of the fall. The court also found sufficient factual issues regarding the defendants' notice of the dangerous electrical condition to deny their cross-motions for summary judgment and indemnification on the other claims, thus requiring further proceedings.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related hazardFall protectionConstruction accidentSummary judgment motionAppellate affirmationGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilitySubcontractor negligenceElectrical hazard
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 158 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