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. 09-17-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2018

Yvonne Trahan v. the Premcor Refining Group Inc. D/B/A Valero Port Arthur Refinery

Yvonne Trahan appealed the trial court's orders, including the denial of her recusal motion and the granting of summary judgment for Premcor Refining Group Inc. d/b/a Valero Port Arthur Refinery. Trahan sustained an on-the-job injury in 2013 and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. She sued Premcor for negligence, alleging Premcor was not her employer and lacked workers' compensation insurance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Premcor conclusively established it was Trahan’s employer and had workers’ compensation coverage, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy.

Exclusive RemedySummary Judgment AppealRecusal DenialEmployer StatusInsurance Policy InterpretationWorkplace InjuryAppellate Standard of ReviewTexas Labor CodeCorporate AffiliatesAbuse of Discretion
References
27
Case No. 09-15-00321-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2017

Joann Compton v. Port Arthur Independent School District, Johnny E. Brown, and Emily King

Joann Compton, a Speech Language Pathologist, appealed the dismissal of her claims against Port Arthur Independent School District and two individual employees. Compton alleged violations of her free speech rights after raising concerns about student privacy related to printer routing, which she claimed led to a hostile work environment and a fraud investigation. The trial court dismissed her claims based on governmental immunity, finding her speech was not a matter of public concern, and ruled her injunctive relief request was moot due to her reassignment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that Compton failed to plead a facially valid constitutional claim and that her claim for injunctive relief lacked a justiciable controversy. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to the individual defendants under the Texas Education Code.

Free Speech RightsGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionProfessional ImmunityTexas Education CodeTexas Tort Claims ActPublic Employee SpeechMootnessAttorney's FeesDeclaratory Judgment Act
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00459 [124 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Port Auth. Police Lieutenants Benevolent Assn.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award. The arbitrator found that the Port Authority violated a collective bargaining agreement by discontinuing free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police lieutenants. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The court determined that the arbitrator's ruling was not

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesPolice LieutenantsAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeContract InterpretationUnanimously Affirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vey v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Clarence Vey, an employee of subcontractor Ermco Erectors, Inc., was injured on a Port Authority construction site. Vey and his wife sued the Port Authority and others, leading to a settlement and a finding of 50% liability each for Port Authority and Ermco. The Port Authority sought indemnification from Grand Iron Works, Inc., the main contractor, who then cross-claimed against Ermco for indemnification. The core legal issue was whether Ermco's contractual indemnity clause with Grand Iron covered Grand Iron's liability to the Port Authority, arising from Vey's work. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that Ermco was contractually obligated to indemnify Grand Iron for all damages arising from Ermco's work, reinstating Grand Iron's judgment.

indemnificationsubcontractor liabilitycontractor liabilityconstruction accidentcontractual indemnitythird-party claimcross-claimtort liabilitynegligenceworkers' compensation
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1995

Johnson v. City of Port Arthur

Glenn C. Johnson, a former employee of the City of Port Arthur, sought in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel for a proposed ADA suit against his ex-employer after being terminated due to a disability. He suffered rhabdomy-dosis and could no longer perform strenuous tasks, leading to his termination. The City claimed inability to accommodate due to a lack of light-duty positions and budget cuts. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the in forma pauperis motion due to Johnson's financial hardship and diligent efforts to secure counsel, but denying appointment of counsel, finding his ADA claim lacked a substantial probability of success. The Magistrate Judge reasoned that changing a laborer to light-duty was not a 'reasonable accommodation' under the ADA. The District Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, granting in forma pauperis status, denying appointment of counsel, and allowing Johnson until July 31, 1995, to file his Title VII complaint.

ADAAmericans With Disabilities ActIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationUndue HardshipEEOCMagistrate Judge Report
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

Ramos v. Port Authority

Plaintiff, an employee of a company contracted by the Port Authority, was injured while hanging tarps on the George Washington Bridge. He was instructed to climb without a safety harness or other safety devices like a man-lift or scaffold. While attempting to return, a railing cable gave way, causing him to fall 40 feet and sustain a femoral shaft fracture. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the Port Authority's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court reversed, finding the Port Authority failed to provide proper safety devices, constituting a per se violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and remanded the case for further proceedings.

George Washington BridgeFall from heightConstruction accidentSummary judgmentAbsolute liabilitySafety devicesScaffoldSafety harnessRecalcitrant workerPersonal injury
References
9
Case No. 09-17-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Yvonne Trahan v. the Premcore Refining Group Inc. D/B/A Valero Port Arthur Refinery

This appeal arises from the 58th District Court in Jefferson County, Texas, challenging the denial of Appellant Yvonne Trahan's motion to recuse the presiding judge and the subsequent grant of summary judgment to Appellee The Premcor Refining Group, Inc. Trahan argues her recusal motion was timely and that such an error warrants automatic reversal. Key legal arguments include whether Premcor was an insured party under a relevant policy, considering it was not explicitly named, and whether Trahan qualified as Premcor's employee under various legal tests, particularly in the context of 'special or temporary employment.' The brief delves into contract interpretation principles and the nuances of employer-employee relationships in Texas law.

Appellate ProcedureJudicial RecusalSummary Judgment AppealContract InterpretationInsurance Policy CoverageEmployer-Employee RelationshipSpecial Employee DoctrineTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial ErrorHarmful Error
References
49
Case No. CV 86-1336
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1987

Brown v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Donald Brown, a Port Authority Police lieutenant, initiated litigation against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and several officials. Brown alleged that he faced disciplinary action, including a counseling memorandum, after circulating a memo that criticized the defendants' inadequate anti-terrorist preparations at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He claimed these actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech and caused him severe psychological stress. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Brown's speech was not a matter of public concern under established Supreme Court precedents like Pickering and Connick. Brown cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court denied both motions, finding that the subject of Brown's memorandum, concerning public safety at a major international airport, could be considered a matter of public concern. Furthermore, the Court noted that disputed material facts, such as the actual impact of the memorandum on office harmony and discipline, precluded granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechRetaliationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPolice DepartmentTerrorism PreparednessWhistleblower ProtectionFreedom of SpeechPort Authority
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 324 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