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
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. 2023-06-5023
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2024

Swanson, Darold v. Facility Installation Service

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville addressed motions in the case of Darold Swanson. Swanson filed a petition alleging a COVID-19 work-related injury from August 2021, seeking benefits from Facility Installation Service, Auto Owners Ins. Co., and the Subsequent Injury and Vocational Recovery Fund. The employer moved to dismiss the petition, citing that it was filed nearly two years post-injury, thus exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. Swanson also filed a motion to continue, claiming incapacitation, but failed to appear at the hearing or provide adequate support. Judge Joshua D. Baker denied Swanson's motion to continue and granted the employer's motion to dismiss with prejudice, ruling that the claim was time-barred and no tolling exceptions applied.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissCOVID-19 ClaimTimelinessTolling DoctrineIncapacity ClaimFailure to AppearProcedural DismissalTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanad

The People moved to reargue the court's September 5, 2014 decision that granted the defendant's motion for a Huntley hearing. The defendant, a police officer, was questioned by an Assistant District Attorney (ADA) regarding a prior arrest report, recanting an earlier statement where she claimed to have witnessed an assault. The People argued the defendant was not in custody or interrogated, thus not entitled to a Huntley hearing. The defendant countered that her statement was compelled, potentially under threat of job forfeiture, making it involuntary. The court granted the reargument motion but ultimately adhered to its prior decision, citing People v Weaver which mandates a Huntley hearing whenever a defendant claims a statement was involuntary. The court will determine the voluntariness of the statement by reviewing the totality of the circumstances at the hearing.

Criminal LawMotion PracticeReargumentHuntley HearingVoluntary StatementPolice OfficerSelf-IncriminationMiranda RightsGarrity RightsPublic Employment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 1993

In Re Super Van, Inc.

The debtor, Super Van, Inc., operating a shuttle service in San Antonio, Texas, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 1992. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor moved under Section 505 of the Bankruptcy Code to determine its tax liability to both the Internal Revenue Service and the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). The TEC subsequently filed a motion asking the court to abstain from hearing the debtor's tax determination motion. The court denied the TEC's motion for abstention, rejecting arguments based on the Thompson, Burford, and Younger abstention doctrines. The court emphasized that Section 505 explicitly grants bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over tax disputes, even if previously adjudicated, to centralize estate administration and avoid inconsistent rulings, thus overriding general abstention principles in this context.

BankruptcyAbstention DoctrineTax LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationTexas Employment CommissionInternal Revenue ServiceFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionSection 505 Bankruptcy Code
References
24
Case No. 09-3356
Regular Panel Decision

Placid Oil Co. v. Williams (In re Placid Oil Co.)

This Revised Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding initiated by Placid Oil Company, a reorganized debtor from a 1980s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Placid sought a determination that post-confirmation tort claims, filed by the Williams Defendants (Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants) in Louisiana state court for asbestos exposure, were discharged by Placid's 1988 bankruptcy confirmation order. The claims arose from the death of Mrs. Myra Williams due to mesothelioma, allegedly caused by indirect asbestos exposure from her husband's work clothes while he was employed by Placid at its Black Lake Facility pre-confirmation. Applying the 'pre-petition relationship test,' the bankruptcy court found that Mrs. Williams' exposure constituted a pre-petition 'claim' and that the Post-Confirmation Tort Claimants were 'unknown creditors.' Concluding that constructive notice via newspaper publication was sufficient for these unknown creditors and that appointing a future claims representative was not warranted, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Placid, discharging the tort claims.

Bankruptcy DischargeAsbestos ExposurePost-Confirmation ClaimsUnknown CreditorsDue Process NoticeSummary JudgmentPre-petition Relationship TestMesotheliomaTort LiabilityChapter 11 Reorganization
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaczor v. City of Buffalo

Walter Kaczor, a retired Buffalo Police Officer, sued the City of Buffalo and its officers for age discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, alleging he was not reinstated due to his age. A jury found the defendants willfully discriminated against Kaczor. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional issues, and damages computation. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and willfulness, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings, including direct evidence of age discrimination. The court also denied motions to dismiss Kaczor's ADEA and pendent state law claims, confirming jurisdiction despite complex interplays between federal and state filing requirements. Issues related to the excessiveness of damages were referred to a Magistrate for settlement negotiations.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)New York State Human Rights LawPost-Trial MotionsWillful DiscriminationJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Procedural RequirementsJurisdictional IssuesElection of RemediesDamagesEmotional Distress
References
24
Case No. 2015-06-0886
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Riley, Patrick v. Group Electric

This case addresses Group Electric's motion for summary judgment in a workers' compensation claim filed by employee Patrick Riley for a left hand and wrist injury sustained at work on June 8, 2015. The Court had previously conducted an expedited hearing, finding Riley a credible witness and rejecting Group Electric's arguments regarding the injury date. Group Electric's motion for summary judgment relied on a causation opinion letter from Dr. Todd Wurth, which was based on a factual assertion (an incorrect injury date) already rejected by the Court. Furthermore, the motion was found deficient as Dr. Wurth's opinion was presented as an unsworn letter rather than an affidavit or deposition testimony as required by Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court denied Group Electric's motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentMotion DenialWorkers' CompensationInjury at WorkOrthopedic InjuryCausation OpinionRule 56Civil ProcedureCredibility FindingExpedited Hearing
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. 2015-06-0093
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

McWherter, Jacquet v. Centurion Stone Products

The case, Jacquet McWherter v. Centurion Stone Products and Amerisure, concerned an alleged workplace injury where a tow motor ran over Mr. McWherter's foot. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Nashville, presided over by Judge Joshua Davis Baker, addressed Centurion Stone Products' Motion for Summary Judgment. Previously, Mr. McWherter's request for medical treatment and temporary disability benefits was denied due to a lack of credibility in his testimony, a decision upheld by the Appeals Board. Centurion argued that Mr. McWherter could not prove an injury arising out of and in the course and scope of his employment, citing medical evidence showing only mild swelling and normal X-rays despite the alleged incident. Mr. McWherter failed to respond to the motion or attend the hearing, and the Court found that Centurion successfully negated an essential element of his claim. Consequently, the Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Mr. McWherter's claim with prejudice and assessing the filing fee to Centurion.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationCredibility AssessmentInjury CausationEmployment ScopeMotion PracticeBurden of ProofMedical EvidenceDismissal with PrejudiceTow Motor Incident
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 17,785 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