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

Port Terminal Railroad Association v. Inge

Lawrence Inge, Jr., an engineer for Port Terminal Railroad Association, sustained personal injuries and filed suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The jury awarded him $282,746, including $200,000 for lost future earning capacity and $17,500 for medical expenses. The court reduced medical expenses to $15,000. On appeal, the appellant complained about the jury's consideration of future inflationary trends and the excessiveness of the lost earning capacity award. The appellate court overruled both points, stating that objections to testimony regarding inflationary trends were not preserved during trial. The court also affirmed the reduction of medical expenses and denied the appellee's cross-points.

Federal Employers’ Liability Actfuture earning capacityinflationary trendsjury verdictappellate reviewmedical expensesdamagespermanent disabilityvocational capabilitieseconomist testimony
References
5
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
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

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 02157 [193 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2021

Matter of Hernandez v. Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist.

Edwin Hernandez, a motor equipment operator, was terminated from his employment with the Port Washington Union Free School District after sustaining injuries on the job and subsequently being charged with misconduct for allegedly being out of work on workers' compensation while able to perform his duties. Following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, a hearing officer found Hernandez guilty of 14 disciplinary charges and recommended termination, which the District adopted. Hernandez commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the administrative determination, finding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of termination was not shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Employee TerminationMisconductCivil Service Law § 75CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeaveDisciplinary ChargesPublic Employment
References
8
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. M2002-02708-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2003

Arthur Lynn v. Randy Camp

Arthur L. Lynn filed a petition for judicial review in chancery court, challenging the termination of his employment for sleeping on the job. The Administrative Law Judge and the Chancery Court affirmed the termination. Lynn subsequently appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed the chancellor's decision, finding that it was supported by substantial and material evidence. The court also concluded that the employer's sleeping policy was not void for vagueness and that the application of progressive discipline was within management's discretion, as permitted by relevant statutes.

Employee terminationPublic sector employmentWorkplace policy violationJudicial reviewAdministrative LawAppellate court decisionDue process rightsStatutory interpretationDiscretionary disciplineHealth and human services
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 1993

Foust v. Village of Port Chester

The petitioner, a sanitation worker employed by the Village of Port Chester, was terminated for 17 unexcused absences between January 1992 and January 1993. A Hearing Officer recommended termination, which the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester confirmed following a post-termination hearing. The petitioner sought review of this determination under CPLR article 78 and Civil Service Law § 75. The court found that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the termination was not disproportionate to the offense. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the proceeding was dismissed on the merits.

Termination of employmentUnexcused absencesArticle 78 proceedingCivil Service LawSubstantial evidenceDisproportionate penaltyAppellate reviewVillage of Port ChesterSanitation workerPost-termination hearing
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,006 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