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. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1985

Adcock v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Former nonunion, salaried employees of Firestone Tire & Rubber Company sued their former employer after Firestone sold its Lavergne tire facility to Bridgestone Tire Company. The employees were immediately re-employed by Bridgestone without a loss of pay, but sought severance benefits from Firestone, arguing the sale constituted a 'reduction in work force' under their severance pay plan governed by ERISA. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, presided over by Chief Judge Wiseman, acknowledged that employees acquire a contractual right to severance pay under federal common law, derived from Firestone's employee handbook. However, the court ruled that continued employment with the successor corporation, Bridgestone, meant the 'reduction in work force' condition for immediate severance pay had not been met. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Firestone, denying the immediate payment of benefits, but clarified that Firestone maintains a continuing contingent liability for severance pay if these former employees are later terminated by Bridgestone for reasons specified in Firestone's original plan.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsWelfare Benefit PlanReduction in ForceFederal Common LawFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityCorporate Acquisition
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

This case concerns the pay practices of defendant Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (MP) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Secretary of Labor alleged that MP failed to pay time-and-a-half overtime to certain professional employees, arguing they were hourly, not salaried, due to pay reductions for partial-day absences. Initially, the District Court sided with MP, finding reductions inadvertent, but the Second Circuit reversed, determining MP's policy allowed such deductions, rendering the "window of correction" inapplicable. On remand, this District Court, adhering to the Second Circuit's binding decision, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Consequently, MP was enjoined from withholding $515,455.50 in backwages and ordered to pay prejudgment interest to the affected employees.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime PaySalaried EmployeeHourly EmployeePay ReductionWindow of CorrectionPortal-to-Portal ActBackwagesPrejudgment Interest
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Winber v. Gottlieb Adorn Printing Co.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workmen's Compensation Board denying compensation benefits. The claimant, a compositor, sustained a lower back injury in November 1958. The core issue was whether a subsequent reduction in earnings in January 1960 was due to the disability or the employer’s economic condition. The employer argued that poor business conditions and the loss of a major contract necessitated the pay reduction. The claimant countered that he was the only employee whose pay was reduced and that two office workers received increases. The board found that the reduction in earnings was due to economic conditions, not the disability. The court affirmed the board's determination, stating it was based on substantial evidence and not reviewable.

workers' compensationreduced earningseconomic conditionsdisabilitycausationsubstantial evidenceappealcompositorlower back injuryemployer responsibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of State of the Pennsylvania v. Moore

This appeal addresses whether a worker's compensation carrier is entitled to a proportionate reduction in supplemental income benefits (SIBs) equal to the percentage of reduction for impairment income benefits (IIBs) for a prior compensable injury under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant, Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, sought an 11/17ths reduction in Appellee John H. Moore's SIBs, matching the reduction applied to his IIBs for a previous back injury. A hearing officer granted the IIB reduction but denied the SIB reduction. The trial court upheld this decision. The appellate court reversed, holding that Texas Labor Code § 408.084 is unambiguous and mandates that both IIBs and SIBs be reduced by the same proportion when contribution is warranted for a prior injury. Consequently, Appellant is entitled to an 11/17ths reduction of Appellee’s supplemental income benefits.

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Impairment Income Benefits (IIBs)Prior Compensable InjuryProportionate ReductionStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommission Appeals Panel
References
24
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04638 [197 AD3d 800]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2021

Matter of McMillian v. Krygier

Petitioner, an incarcerated person, challenged a reduction in his pay rate by the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) after refusing to participate in recommended programming. His grievance was denied by the facility Superintendent and his subsequent appeal to the Central Office Review Committee (CORC) remained undecided for over eight months. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the merits. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The court found that exhaustion of administrative remedies was excused due to both futility and the presence of pure questions of law, concluding that DOCCS's policies linking pay reduction to program refusal were within its statutory authority and were properly applied.

Inmate RightsPrison AdministrationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineCPLR Article 78 ReviewNew York State LawCorrectional FacilitiesDue ProcessGrievance ProceduresJudicial Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Handschu v. Special Services Division

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for attorneys' fees filed by Class Counsel in a civil rights action, Handschu v. Police Dept. of the City of New York. The plaintiff class was previously deemed the prevailing party on a significant issue, entitling them to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), payable by the City of New York. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Haight, reviewed Class Counsel's fee application, finding an hourly rate of $400 for each of the five experienced attorneys to be reasonable. However, the Court applied several reductions: a 30% reduction for the degree of success achieved, a 10% reduction for failure to maintain fully compliant contemporaneous time records, and a 10% reduction for overstaffing and duplication of effort. Fees related to a sanction imposed on Corporation Counsel for late disclosure were exempt from these reductions. The City of New York was directed to pay the adjusted fee awards and expenses by August 31, 2010.

Attorneys' Fees MotionCivil Rights ActionPrevailing Party DoctrineFee ReductionBilling JudgmentContemporaneous Time RecordsOverstaffingSanctions for MisconductPolice SurveillanceEquitable Power
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

This opinion addresses the financial ability of Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 28 (the 'Union') to satisfy a back pay award stemming from previous contempt findings for violations of court orders and an affirmative action plan related to nonwhite membership goals. The court reaffirms the compensatory rationale for the back pay award, making the Union's ability to pay relevant for how it will be paid, not whether it can afford it. Based on expert testimony, the court determines the Union can immediately contribute $1 million from its cash reserves and an additional $1.6 million within six months by selling or mortgaging its real estate holdings. Furthermore, the Union is ordered to pay $900,000 annually, starting December 31, 2001, by restoring membership dues and assessments to their pre-reduction levels. All funds are to be deposited into an interest-bearing escrow account to ensure compliance and facilitate distribution to entitled nonwhite journeypersons.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionContempt of CourtBack Pay AwardUnion FinancesRemedial SanctionsRacial DiscriminationCivil ProcedureEscrow FundLitigation History
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,989 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