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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This is an appeal by the claimants from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 29, 1963, which modified a determination of a Referee relating to the eligibility of claimants for benefits during the period of a strike. The claimants, primarily longshoremen and other land-based workers, were unable to work due to picket lines established by seamen against employers like United States Lines Co. and Grace Line, Inc. The Board found that each pier constituted a separate establishment and that claimants lost employment due to a strike in their establishment. While affirming the Board's decision for most claimants, the court reversed and remitted the cases of specific individuals (Donnelly, Di Meceli, Kinahan, Kerins, Farrer, and Lessner) who were unemployed prior to the establishment of picket lines, clarifying that their loss of employment could not be attributed to the subsequent strike at that time.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsLongshoremen StrikeSeamen's Picket LinesEstablishment DefinitionEmployment RelationshipEligibility for BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority SystemAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case concerns a dispute where Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., a shipper, sought an injunction against common carriers and Teamsters Local 327. The carriers, including Cook Truck Lines and Hoover Motor Express, refused customary service to Kerrigan due to Local 327 employees not crossing picket lines set by another union (Iron Workers) at Kerrigan's plants. Kerrigan argued this refusal violated state common law and statutes regarding a carrier's public duty. The Chancery Court granted a permanent injunction, which Local 327 appealed, asserting federal labor law preemption and contractual rights to refuse service. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the union's conduct was not a federally protected activity or unfair labor practice, nor was there an exclusive federal remedy, thus preserving state court jurisdiction to enforce common carrier duties.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCommon Carrier DutyState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActPicket LineUnfair Labor PracticesConcerted ActivitiesContract Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Mile Peros, a longshoreman employed by Grace Line, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained on the S.S. SANTA LUISA, owned by Grace Line, Inc. He filed an action at law against Grace Line, Inc. and a proceeding in admiralty against the ship and Grace Line, Inc. as claimant. The defendant moved to dismiss the actions, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy. Peros countermoved to strike these defenses. The court, citing precedent from Reed v. S.S. Yaka and similar cases, denied the respondent's motion and granted the libelant's motion, concluding that Yaka controlled despite the defendant being the actual owner and stevedore employer.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersCompensation ActAdmiraltyMaritime LawPersonal InjuryExclusive RemedyShipownerEmployer LiabilityMotion Practice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
Case No. 2022-03-0580
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Clayton Rash, a truck driver for Fine Line Transportation, suffered a broken left wrist at work. While undergoing physical therapy for his wrist, he sustained a left shoulder injury, which he attributed to exercises performed during therapy. Fine Line Transportation denied benefits for the shoulder injury, arguing against causation. The Court found Mr. Rash's testimony credible and, relying on the opinion of a panel-selected physician, Dr. Kenneth Grinspun, determined that the shoulder injury was a direct and natural consequence of his compensable wrist injury. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Rash medical treatment for his left shoulder, including recommended surgery, and ordered Fine Line Transportation to pay temporary partial disability benefits.

Shoulder InjuryWrist FracturePhysical Therapy InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment AuthorizationExpedited HearingEmployer's Examination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and the Flight Engineers’ International Association (FEIA) filed an action under the Railway Labor Act against Pan American World Airways (Pan Am) seeking a preliminary injunction. The unions aimed to compel Pan Am to revert to non-concessionary "white pages" agreements after January 1, 1985, arguing that prior "pink pages" concessions were temporary and had expired. Pan Am contended the "pink pages" constituted the status quo for ongoing negotiations. Presiding Judge McLaughlin, consolidating the trial on merits with the injunction hearing, ruled that the parties had explicitly agreed in their contracts that the "white pages" would define the status quo after the expiration of the temporary concessions. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, ordering Pan Am to construct future flight assignment bid lines in accordance with the "white pages," while denying the retrospective reconstruction of already issued January bid lines.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionStatus QuoCollective BargainingLabor AgreementContract InterpretationUnion RightsEmployer ObligationsBid LinesConcessionary Agreements
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Secretary of Labor alleged that Atlantic Container Line (ACL) violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by involuntarily retiring employees at age 62, while ACL contended these retirements were exempt under ADEA § 4(f)(2). The court had previously denied summary judgment, noting factual questions regarding whether a 1974 amendment to ACL's pension plan constituted a subterfuge to evade the ADEA and if ACL relied in good faith on administrative regulations. Upon review of stipulated facts, the court found no evidence of subterfuge in ACL's plan amendment, which aimed to create promotional opportunities and harmonize retirement ages. Furthermore, ACL successfully established a good faith defense under the Portal-to-Portal Act, having relied on official administrative regulations despite conflicting advice from a Department of Labor representative. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ActPension PlanSubterfugeGood Faith DefenseSummary JudgmentMandatory RetirementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

D. O. Peddy sued Houston Pipe Line Company for personal injuries after a hellhole collapsed during pipe repair work. The jury found Houston Pipe Line Company negligent, leading to a judgment for Peddy and also for New Amsterdam Casualty Company, the compensation carrier which intervened. The defendant appealed, arguing there was no evidence supporting their retained right of control over the work or the hellhole's construction. The appellate court found no evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the defendant's right to control the construction of the hellhole, concluding that the Construction Company was an independent contractor. Therefore, the judgment against the defendant was reversed, and judgment was rendered that the plaintiff and intervenor take nothing.

Personal injurynegligenceindependent contractorpremises liabilityappellate reviewjury findingsproximate causesupervisory controlworkplace accidentpipe line
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 700 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