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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2006

Magadan v. Interlake Packaging Corp.

The plaintiff, a factory worker, sustained personal injuries while operating an S3A 7/8” Book Stitcher, leading to a lawsuit against the manufacturer (Interlake Packaging Corporation), its successor (Samuel Strapping Services), and the seller (Suburban Graphic Supply Corp.). The injury occurred when her finger was caught by the machine's needle due to an improperly adjusted finger guard. Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no design defect. However, the appellate court partially reversed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' failure to provide adequate warnings about operating the machine without proper finger guard adjustment. Furthermore, the court found triable issues concerning the defendants' post-sale duty to warn about safety modifications.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppealFactory Worker InjuryMachine SafetyPost-Sale Duty to Warn
References
9
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. 01-06-00759-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2009

WPS, Inc. v. Enervest Operating, LLC

WPS, Inc. appealed a final judgment in favor of EnerVest Operating, L.L.C., concerning a dispute over a compressor package rental and maintenance contract. A fire destroyed the compressor, and EnerVest sued WPS for breach of contract, alleging a defective component. WPS counterclaimed, asserting EnerVest's negligence and breach of insurance obligations. The jury found an internal defect caused the fire, leading to a judgment for EnerVest for damages and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, addressing various appellate challenges including jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, contractual limitations on liability, and EnerVest's compliance with insurance provisions.

Contract LawBreach of ContractCommercial LeaseWarranty DisputeProduct LiabilityJury InstructionsEvidentiary SufficiencyIndemnityInsurance ContractAttorney's Fees
References
30
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
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00831 [224 AD3d 1051]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Golisano v. ABX Innovative Packaging Solutions LLC

The claimant, Jason R. Golisano, filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 for injuries to his left wrist and hand. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury. The employer and its carrier (appellants) sought review of this decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The Board denied the application as untimely, and the carrier appealed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely application, despite the carrier's arguments regarding a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Workers' CompensationTimelinessApplication for ReviewBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewCOVID-19Procedural IssueWCLJ DecisionEmployer-Carrier AppealNew York Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,397 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