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

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. 92 Civ. 4884 (RJW)
Regular Panel Decision

PEOPLE OF STATE OF NY BY ABRAMS v. Foreman

Plaintiffs, the People of the State of New York, moved for civil contempt against Joseph Foreman, Patrick Mahoney, and Robert Sehenck for violating a Preliminary Injunction issued on July 13, 1992, in People v. Operation Rescue Nat’l. The injunction prohibited presenting a fetus to Governor Bill Clinton. Defendants Foreman and Sehenck, along with Harley David Belew, discussed plans to present a fetus ("Baby Nathan") to Governor Clinton during the Democratic National Convention. Despite being aware of the injunction, Foreman and Sehenck facilitated Belew's actions by providing lodging and failing to dissuade him. The Court found Foreman and Sehenck in civil contempt, concluding they aided and abetted the violation. The decision highlighted their clear noncompliance, lack of reasonable diligence, and willful disregard for the judicial decree, and held them liable for liquidated damages as stipulated by the injunction.

Civil ContemptPreliminary InjunctionAiding and AbettingFetus PresentationAbortion ProtestJudicial Decree ViolationDemocratic National ConventionWillful DisobedienceLiquidated DamagesCourt Order Enforcement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foreman ex rel. Fromme v. Security Insurance Co. of Hartford

John H. Foreman died in a work-related accident. His wife, Denise Foreman, and their children received workers' compensation benefits from Security Insurance Company of Hartford. Following a third-party wrongful death settlement, Denise Foreman argued that she and some children became 'ineligible' for further benefits, proposing that the stepchildren, Brandon and Clayton Fromme, should receive the full redistributed compensation payments. The court examined the statutory definition of 'eligible' under the Texas Labor Code. It concluded that eligibility is determined by marital status, age, or dependency at the time of the worker's death, not by the actual receipt of benefits or an advance from a third-party settlement. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment, stating that beneficiaries remain eligible even if their future benefits are covered by a third-party recovery.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsStatutory InterpretationEligibilitySubrogationThird-Party SettlementDouble RecoveryTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewBeneficiary Rights
References
20
Case No. 14-19-00851-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Michael D. Fenley v. Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc.

Michael D. Fenley sued Texas Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. for age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliatory termination after his employment was terminated in November 2016, seven months after being hired. Fenley alleged that his supervisor made frequent age-related comments and complained about his back problems and a broken finger, which required surgery and workers' compensation claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for Texas Plumbing on all claims, but Fenley appealed, challenging these grounds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the disability discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Fenley failed to provide sufficient evidence of a "disability" or a retaliatory motive. However, the court reversed and remanded the age discrimination claim, concluding that Fenley's personal statement provided direct evidence of discriminatory animus, such as his supervisor telling him he was "too old for this job."

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTexas Labor CodeDirect EvidenceCausal ConnectionPretextAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. 13-00-411-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2001

Cullen Plumbing, Inc., D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. and Greg Cullen D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. v. Mark Duncan and Teresa Duncan

This case concerns an appeal from a default judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., and Greg Cullen, d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., brought by Mark and Teresa Duncan due to cracking in a pool deck. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment against Greg Cullen individually, finding strict compliance with service rules and evidence of conscious indifference regarding his failure to answer. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., because the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107 regarding substitute service, specifically the lack of reflection that service occurred at the court-ordered address.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureSubstitute ServiceAppellate ReviewMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceCraddock TestJurisdictionDue Process
References
5
Case No. 01-96-01528-CV, 01-98-00409-CV, 01-98-00016-CV, 01-98-00413-CV, 01-98-00124-CV, 01-98-00103-CV, 01-97-01321-CV, 01-98-00414-CV, 01-00-00289-CV, 01-00-00288-CV, 01-98-00018-CV, 01-98-00412-CV, 01-98-00415-CV, 01-98-00410-CV, 01-98-00411-CV and 01-00-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2000

In Re Polybutylene Plumbing Litigation

The case addresses whether a trial judge can unilaterally modify attorneys' fee contracts in mass tort litigation outside of class action rules. Appellants, a coalition of 49 law firms, challenged a trial court's order reducing their contingent fees in a polybutylene plumbing settlement. The trial court, acting *sua sponte*, deemed the aggregate fees excessive despite the absence of fraud, fiduciary breach, or client incapacity claims. The Court of Appeals examined the applicability of general contract law, class action principles, the common fund doctrine, and inherent judicial authority. The appellate court concluded that none of these exceptions allowed for the modification of valid, fully-performed attorney-client contracts, thereby reversing the trial court's decision regarding attorneys' fees.

Attorneys' FeesContingent Fee ContractsContract LawJudicial AuthorityMass Tort LitigationPolybutylene PlumbingNot a Class ActionCommon Fund Doctrine InapplicableTexas LawAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.

The Plaintiffs, comprising ERISA funds and their trustees, sued Delta Plumbing and Heating Corporation for delinquent fringe benefits and later added New York Surety Company as a defendant on its bond. Following Delta's bankruptcy, New York Surety became the sole defendant and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that a surety is not an 'employer' under ERISA and that the court lacked pendent party jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the 'plain meaning' of ERISA's definition of 'employer' could extend to a surety that acts in the interest of an employer by guaranteeing contributions. Furthermore, the court found that under the legal framework applicable to this pre-1990 action, ERISA's statutory language did not confer pendent party jurisdiction.

ERISA EnforcementSurety LiabilityDelinquent ContributionsSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionCollective BargainingMultiemployer Pension PlansEmployee Benefits SecurityFederal Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. 03-03-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Billy Salyers, Individually and D/B/A Aquarius Plumbing v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund sued Billy Salyers to recover unpaid insurance premiums for his business, Aquarius Plumbing. Salyers counterclaimed under the DTPA, arguing he was not personally liable as he didn't sign the contract and that the suit was filed in an improper venue. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Fund. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding Salyers was personally liable for the business's debt as a co-owner, and his affirmative defenses were waived. The court also found the DTPA claim invalid as the insurance contract was for business, not personal, use, making Travis County an appropriate venue.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceBusiness DebtSummary Judgment ReviewPersonal LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPATravis County CourtCommunity PropertyDivorce DecreeAffirmative Defenses Waiver
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 314 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