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

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2008

Rylott-Rooney v. Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-Societa Per Azioni

Plaintiff Linda Rylott-Rooney filed a discrimination suit against her former employer, Alitalia, alleging age and national origin discrimination under New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Alitalia moved to dismiss, arguing the laws were inapplicable because Rylott-Rooney primarily worked and resided in Minnesota. The court denied Alitalia's motion, determining that the termination decision and the actual act of termination both occurred in New York, establishing a sufficient jurisdictional nexus for the New York human rights laws. The ruling distinguished between the location of the discriminatory act and where the impact of termination was felt, affirming that the former was sufficient for jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawJurisdictionLong-Arm JurisdictionWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court
References
15
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. W2021-01345-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2024

Lorenzo C. White v. Carolyn Fields Hayes

This appeal concerns the estate of Dr. Hillery W. Key, who died testate in 1912. The dispute revolves around the distribution method (per capita vs. per stirpes) of his estate among his descendants. Plaintiffs (Marilyn Locke and Odessa Rose) advocate for a per capita distribution, while Defendants assert a 2005 opinion by the same court already decided on a per stirpes distribution, upheld by the law of the case doctrine. The parties reached a binding agreement in open court, waiving their right to appeal, but Plaintiffs appealed anyway. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, upheld the per stirpes distribution, and found the appeal frivolous, remanding for an award of attorney's fees against the Plaintiffs.

Estate LawWill InterpretationPer Stirpes DistributionPer Capita DistributionLaw of the Case DoctrineFrivolous AppealAttorney's FeesWaiver of AppealSettlement AgreementIntestate Succession
References
25
Case No. M2022-01299-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2023

Andrew Francis Tittle v. Deidre Lyn Deyoung Tittle

This is a divorce action in which the trial court awarded the wife a divorce based on the husband’s inappropriate marital conduct, divided the marital estate and awarded the wife, inter alia, child support as well as transitional alimony of $2,000 per month for four years, followed by $1,500 per month for two years, then $1,000 per month for two years, and $500 per month for two years. The court also awarded the wife alimony in solido of $50,000 as necessary spousal support and an additional $75,000 to defray the cost of most of her attorney’s fees. The husband appeals. We have determined that the record contains an inconsistency concerning the amount of the work-related childcare expenses the husband is required to pay, and it appears that the trial court failed to consider the husband’s obligation to pay work-related childcare costs in setting transitional alimony at $2,000 per month during the first four years, which additional expense appears to impair the husband’s ability to pay that amount. Accordingly, we vacate the award of child support and that portion of the transitional alimony award and remand these issues for reconsideration, taking into account, inter alia, the allocation of childcare expenses, the wife’s need, and the husband’s ability to pay. We affirm the trial court in all other respects. Both parties seek to recover the attorney’s fees and costs each incurred in this appeal. Exercising our discretion, we deny both requests.

DivorceAlimonyChild SupportMarital MisconductCredibility AssessmentFinancial DuplicityAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionChildcare ExpensesSpousal Support
References
26
Case No. ADJ2610305 (WCK 63412) ADJ3981181 (WCK 63413) ADJ1135990 (OAK 339001)
Regular
Mar 24, 2009

CATHY D. KRAUS vs. VETERINARY SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a dispute over the correct temporary disability indemnity rate for an applicant injured in 2001. The applicant's original agreed rate was $420 per week based on $630 average weekly earnings, but a subsequent injury in 2006 led to payments at $480 per week. The WCJ awarded an indemnity rate of "at least $480 per week" for the 2001 injury, citing post-injury earnings as evidence of earning capacity. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and remanded for further proceedings. The Board emphasized that post-injury earnings should only be considered if scheduled or reasonably anticipated at the time of the 2001 injury, per *Kyllonen*, and noted insufficient analysis in the WCJ's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityAverage Weekly EarningsIndustrial InjuryShouldersLabor Code § 4656(c)StipulationsAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1997

McCauley v. McCauley

The case concerns a motion by the defendant, a former husband, to modify his child support and maintenance obligations following the termination of his employment. Justice Vito C. Caruso, of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, found that the defendant, despite losing his $41,000 per year research scientist position, had not made a diligent effort to find new employment. The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the defendant and, after careful consideration of the Child Support Standards Act and the Matter of Holmes v Holmes decision, determined that a $19 per week child support award would be unjust. Consequently, the court modified the maintenance obligation from $190 to $95 per week and set child support at $95 per week, with both parties sharing health care costs, to ensure the children's needs and standard of living were maintained. The defendant's motion was granted in part, resulting in a modification of the original September 23, 1994 divorce judgment.

Child Support ModificationMaintenance ModificationImputed IncomeJob Search DiligenceParental ObligationsDivorce JudgmentSchenectady CountyChild Support Standards ActStandard of LivingBest Interests of the Child
References
1
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