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. E2010-01359-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2011

Dennis W. Blackmon v. LP Pigeon Forge, LLC

Dennis W. Blackmon, son of decedent Lois L. Pierce, sued LP Pigeon Forge, LLC, and others, alleging nursing home negligence. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by Blackmon during his mother's admission. The trial court denied the motion, finding Blackmon lacked authority to sign on his mother's behalf, as her prior power of attorney had lapsed and the circumstances of the agreement's execution were unconscionable. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, reiterating that the decedent was competent and her son did not have actual or apparent authority to waive her rights to a jury trial. The court emphasized that a nursing home resident's right to independent judgment cannot be abridged without proper authorization.

Nursing Home NegligenceArbitration AgreementPower of AttorneyApparent AuthorityActual AuthorityContract ValidityUnconscionabilityElder LawPatient RightsAgency Law
References
20
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff suffered serious injuries after slipping on pigeon droppings on subway stairs. The jury found the defendant, the Transit Authority, negligent and awarded significant damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings. On appeal, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of liability, citing the defendant's actual and constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition. However, the appellate court reduced certain jury awards for future medical expenses and loss of earnings, deeming them speculative or unsupported by evidence, while upholding other aspects of the trial court's decisions regarding witness preclusion and the use of pre-existing conditions.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallPigeon DroppingsSubway StairsDamages ReductionJury AwardAppellate ReviewActual KnowledgeConstructive Knowledge
References
11
Case No. 08-07-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2009

Maria Lourdes Rodriguez v. Duncan M. Crowell

Maria Lourdes Rodriguez sued Duncan M. Crowell for negligence and premises liability, alleging she contracted psittacosis, a latent occupational disease from pigeon droppings, at her workplace. The trial court granted Crowell’s motion for summary judgment, citing a limitations defense. Rodriguez appealed, arguing her claim accrued in July 2003 upon diagnosis. However, the appellate court determined that her symptoms and awareness of workplace issues by March 2002 should have provided reasonable notice of a work-related injury, thus barring her claim under the two-year statute of limitations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying her motion to amend pleadings as it would not impact the limitations issue.

Latent Occupational DiseasePsittacosisStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical DiagnosisWorkplace Exposure
References
19
Case No. 19-0234
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2020

Ladonna Degan, Ric Terrones, John McGuire, Reed Higgins, Mike Gurley, Larry Eddington, and Steven McBride v. the Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System

Appellants, former police officers and firefighters, participated in a Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) allowing lump-sum withdrawals of accrued retirement funds. In 2017, statutory amendments restricted DROP withdrawals to only monthly or annual annuities, even though the funds belonged exclusively to the retirees. The Texas Supreme Court denied the appellants' claim that these amendments violated Article XVI, Section 66 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits retroactively "reducing or otherwise impairing" retirement benefits, ruling that the method of withdrawal is not a protected benefit. Justice Boyd dissented, arguing that restricting access to exclusively owned accrued funds diminishes their value, thereby "otherwise impairing" the benefits in violation of the Constitution.

Texas Supreme CourtPension SystemDeferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)Constitutional LawContract ImpairmentPublic EmployeesRetirement BenefitsFirst RespondersStatutory InterpretationDissenting Opinion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hernandez v. Carpet

The claimant, a sales manager, was injured in a one-car accident while driving home after attending a mandatory evening meeting for his employer in Jamaica, Queens. He had transported two co-employees from the meeting, dropping them off at the store and then another near his home on his direct route to West Haverstraw, New York. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially determined that the injury, sustained on the Sprain Brook Parkway, was compensable as it arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing that the injury did not meet the criteria for compensability. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s ruling, finding the employer’s arguments unpersuasive and stating that the stops to drop off co-employees on a direct route home from a required work function did not negate the compensable nature of the injury.

Compensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentTravel TimeEmployer Mandated MeetingCommuting AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate AffirmationSales Manager AccidentDual Purpose Trip
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lettis v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff John M. Lettis, a former letter carrier, brought a hybrid action against the United States Post Office and Branch 6000, alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement and duty of fair representation after his employment termination. He moved to drop certain defendants, add others, and amend his complaint to include claims from a suspension arbitration. The Court granted the motion to drop original defendants and to add the United States Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers as defendants. It also conditionally granted the addition of several individual defendants for supplemental state claims, pending proper pleading and applicable statutes of limitations. Furthermore, the Court conditionally allowed the amendment of claims arising from a suspension arbitration, subject to a six-month statute of limitations.

Employment LawLabor LawUnion RepresentationBreach of ContractFederal Civil ProcedureStatute of LimitationsHybrid ActionCollective Bargaining AgreementUnited States Postal ServiceNational Association of Letter Carriers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jweid v. Vicks Lithograph & Printing

Claimant injured his back at work in February 1999, leading to multiple diagnoses and back surgeries. Following surgeries, he developed a consequential left foot drop injury. A workers' compensation claim was established and later amended to include the foot drop. Medical evidence supported a 40% loss of use of the left foot and a permanent partial disability of his back, with the claimant having reached maximum medical improvement. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge made a schedule loss award for the 40% loss of use of the left foot, which the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing against a schedule loss award. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, as a schedule loss of use award is appropriate when there is no continuing need for medical treatment and the condition is stable.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseBack InjuryFoot DropMedical ImprovementPermanent Partial DisabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02605
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Ping Lin v. 100 Wall St. Prop. L.L.C.

Plaintiff Ping Lin sustained injuries after falling from a six-foot A-frame ladder while working on a drop ceiling on June 3, 2015. He was holding a piece of sheetrock with one hand and reaching for a drill with the other when the sheetrock fell, hitting his head, causing him to drop the drill and the ladder to shake, leading to his fall. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to properly secure the ladder against movement or slippage, thus not providing adequate protection. The court rejected arguments regarding inconsistent statements, intervening superseding cause, or plaintiff's sole proximate cause/recalcitrant worker status, concluding that the ladder was an inadequate safety device for the work performed.

Summary JudgmentLadder AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyWorker FallAppellate ReviewLiabilityHazardous EquipmentNegligenceWorkplace Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hughes v. Indian Valley Industries, Inc.

In October 1996, the claimant sustained a work-related injury while lifting a 500-pound tarpaulin, leading to claims of left foot, leg, low back injuries, and nerve damage. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) recognized causal relationship only for the left foot injury, later amending the findings to include the back injury and left foot drop. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently rescinded the portion regarding the left foot drop for further medical evaluation but affirmed the causal relationship for the back injury and rejected the carrier's fraud allegations. The employer and its carrier appealed this Board decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, noting that resolving conflicting expert medical testimony falls within the Board’s authority and concluding that the Board’s findings on the back injury and fraud issue were supported by substantial evidence.

CausationBack InjuryLeft Foot DropMedical EvidenceConflicting TestimonyWorkers' Compensation FraudPreexisting ConditionSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate AffirmationJudicial Review of Administrative Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 85 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