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

In Re TIG Insurance Co.

This Per Curiam opinion addresses a petition for writ of mandamus filed by TIG, an insurance company, against an order by Judge Gary Sanderson. The underlying dispute involves TIG's objections to 113 discovery requests propounded by Henry C. Beck Company (Beck) in an insurance coverage case related to asbestos claims. TIG argued that many requests were overly broad, lacked specificity, or sought privileged attorney work product. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, vacating the trial court's order for most overly broad requests and those concerning attorney work product, while upholding the order for other specific requests. Additionally, the court remanded a $10,000 attorney's fees sanction for modification, requiring the trial court to make a finding regarding its impact on TIG's ability to defend the lawsuit.

Discovery OrdersMandamus ReliefOverbreadth in DiscoveryAttorney Work Product PrivilegePrivilege LogDiscovery SanctionsInsurance CoverageAsbestos LitigationTexas Civil ProcedureTrial Court Discretion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Acme Backing Corp. & District 65, Distributive, Processing & Office Workers of America

This Per Curiam decision addresses a demand for arbitration that arose after a petitioner closed its Brooklyn plant and moved manufacturing to two factories in Missouri and Connecticut, controlled by separate corporations. The dispute involved conflicting interpretations of various articles within the collective bargaining agreement, specifically concerning the bargaining unit, management's rights, prohibitions against strikes, lockouts, or subcontracting when employees were not working full-time, and the responsibilities of 'successors in interest.' The court affirmed the lower court's order denying the motion to stay arbitration, holding that controversies involving the interpretation or application of the agreement's provisions, or any breach thereof, are exclusively within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, not the courts.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPlant ClosingRelocation of ManufacturingManagement RightsUnion RightsSuccessors in InterestContract InterpretationStay of ArbitrationJurisdiction of Arbitrator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. 01-15-00408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

in Re Joseph Andre Davis

Joseph Andre Davis, the Appellant, filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, and rehearing en banc with the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. The motion challenges a prior per curiam affirmance concerning a case involving Floyd D. Lopez (Appellee). Davis argues that the court misapprehended critical facts and law, particularly regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the standing of the maternal grandparents for managing conservatorship, and the alleged violation of his fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He requests a written opinion and certification of questions to the Texas Supreme Court, emphasizing the significant precedential implications of the court's decision on parental liberty interests and the uniformity of legal precedents.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingRehearing En BancPer Curiam AffirmanceParental RightsGrandparent ConservatorshipSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingDue ProcessFourteenth Amendment
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1961

In re the Arbitration between Buchholz & Local 463, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

An employer appealed the denial of his application to stay an arbitration sought by a union regarding the discharge of employee Klementowicz. The union had previously filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning Klementowicz's discharge, which was dismissed. The NLRB also ruled that Klementowicz was no longer an employee when an election was held, a decision upheld on appeal. The court determined that the NLRB had already ruled on the precise issue of Klementowicz's employment status and discharge. Allowing arbitration on the same question could lead to conflicting rulings, which should be avoided. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the employer's motion to stay the arbitration.

ArbitrationUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelDischargeEmployee StatusStay of ArbitrationConflicting RulingsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S. Blechman & Sons, Inc. v. Osman

This case concerns a permanent injunction granted in 1936, prior to the enactment of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act. The court affirms the validity of the injunction, stating it was a valid decree from a court with proper jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter. It emphasizes that the remedy for an aggrieved party was through appeal or modification, neither of which was pursued, making the decree the law of the case. Consequently, the order is reversed, and the matter is remitted to Special Term for further proceedings.

Permanent InjunctionJurisdictionAppellate ReviewLaw of the CaseReversalRemandCivil ProcedureJudicial DecreeEquityLegal Remedy
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stachera v. Dave Hallman Chevrolet, Inc.

The claimant, a maintenance worker, suffered a coronary thrombosis and myocardial infarction after performing strenuous duties, including sweeping, lifting heavy metal parts, and painting from a stepladder. The Workmen’s Compensation Board found that this work required more than normal exertion and was the cause of the disability. The board accepted the claimant’s medical expert’s opinion on causal relationship, rejecting the carrier’s expert’s opposing view. On appeal, the court affirmed the board's decision, concluding that there was substantial medical evidence to support a causally related disability extending beyond June 9, 1966. The decision emphasized that the board was warranted in its findings regarding strenuous work and the causal link.

Coronary ThrombosisMyocardial InfarctionStrenuous WorkExertionCausal RelationshipMedical Expert OpinionDisability CompensationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Abbott

Respondent, an attorney admitted in 1952, faced disciplinary charges from the Committee on Professional Standards. The charges included improper ex parte communications, sending harassing correspondence with false information, aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law (Betty O. Muka), making false and unsupported allegations in court and during investigations, and attempting to mislead the petitioner. These acts occurred during his representation in the Dahl v Baetz litigation and the Esther L. Bruce estate matter. Despite a previously clean record and expressed remorse, the court found the misconduct very serious. The respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years to protect the public and uphold the Bar's reputation.

Professional MisconductAttorney DisciplineEx Parte CommunicationFalse AllegationsUnauthorized Practice of LawHarassmentMisleading the CourtEthical ViolationsSuspension of AttorneyBar Association Standards
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein Independent School District v. Wilson

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether expert medical testimony is required to establish the percentage of prior injuries contributing to a worker's disability in a worker's compensation case. The court reversed the court of appeals' decision, which had mandated expert testimony, and held that detailed evidence demonstrating the cause of injury and the contribution of prior injuries is sufficient for a jury to assign a percentage, even without a medical expert providing a specific range. This ruling disapproves previous contrary opinions and remands the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Worker's CompensationExpert TestimonyPrior InjuriesDisability BenefitsPercentage ContributionMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemandTexas LawCausation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 899 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