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
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halsey Drug Co. v. Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastics & Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815

Plaintiff Halsey Drug Co., Inc. (Halsey) filed an action against Defendant Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastic and Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815 (Local 815) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Halsey sought a declaration from the court regarding the arbitrability of certain issues related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after closing its Brooklyn facility and moving some operations to Congers, New York. Local 815 demanded that Halsey apply the CBA to the new Congers facility and offer employment to laid-off Brooklyn employees, subsequently filing for arbitration. Halsey argued that the claims arose after the CBA's expiration and should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board, not arbitration. The court, applying established labor law precedents regarding arbitrability, denied Halsey's motion for summary judgment and granted Local 815's motion, ruling that the dispute is arbitrable because the underlying facts arose before the CBA's expiration and involve contract interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnion RepresentationFederal Declaratory Judgment ActLabor Management Relations ActPost-expiration ClaimsArbitrability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norwood v. Raytheon Co.

This case addresses the legal recognition of medical monitoring claims in Texas law. Plaintiffs, a group of individuals including radar operators and technicians, alleged negligent conduct by several defendant manufacturers of radar equipment due to inadequate shielding and failure to warn about radiation exposure. They sought class certification for medical monitoring for those not yet suffering from illness and for liability issues for those with existing injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss all medical monitoring claims, arguing they are not a recognized cause of action in Texas, and also sought to dismiss claims by the Bund Zur Unterstutzung based on associational standing. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all medical monitoring claims, concluding that Texas law does not recognize such an independent cause of action. Consequently, the Bund Zur Unterstutzung was dismissed as a party, rendering the motion regarding its standing moot.

Medical MonitoringClass ActionMotion to DismissRadiation ExposureRadar EquipmentTexas LawFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA)Personal InjuryNegligence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elgin v. Bryant

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Labor from a Chancery Court decree in Davidson County, where Elgin Drug Store, Inc. recovered unemployment compensation paid under protest. The core dispute centers on whether Mrs. Nancy Y. Elgin, the corporation's uncompensated secretary and sole stock owner, should be counted as an "employee" under the Unemployment Compensation statute. If Mrs. Elgin were considered an employee, the corporation would meet the eight-employee threshold and be subject to the act; otherwise, it would have only seven employees and not be liable. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that Mrs. Elgin, performing only nominal duties without compensation, was not an employee as defined by the statute. Consequently, the Elgin Drug Store, Inc. was not subject to the act, and the decision to allow interest on the recovered funds was also affirmed, as the employer was compelled to litigate for the refund.

Unemployment CompensationEmployer DefinitionEmployee StatusCorporate OfficerUncompensated ServicesStatutory InterpretationTax RefundInterest on RecoveryAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commerce & Industry Insurance Co. v. Ferguson-Stewart

This appeal arises from a worker’s compensation case concerning the injury and subsequent death of Bruce Stewart. His beneficiary, Kimberly Ferguson-Stewart, was awarded workers' compensation benefits and attorneys' fees, which the insurance carrier, CIIC, challenged. CIIC appealed the exclusion of evidence regarding Stewart's prescription drug use and the award of attorneys' fees, arguing the latter issue should have been decided by a jury. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude the drug use evidence, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it reversed the attorneys' fee award, remanding that issue for a jury trial in light of a recent Texas Supreme Court ruling which clarified the right to a jury determination on such fees.

Worker's CompensationAttorneys' FeesEvidentiary RulingAbuse of DiscretionJury TrialRemandIntoxication DefenseDrug-Seeking BehaviorAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunsucker v. Rowntree

Chief Justice Cornelius dissents, arguing that a patient's unilateral act of refilling a prescription, months after their last physician contact, does not constitute 'continuing treatment by the physician' sufficient to delay the running of the statute of limitations. The dissenting judge emphasizes that the continuous treatment rule must focus on the physician's actions, not the patient's unilateral acts. Mrs. Hunsucker's last physician contact with Dr. Rowntree was May 22, 1987, when he renewed her prescription. Her allegations focus on Dr. Rowntree's failure to properly diagnose, refer to other physicians, and monitor her condition, not negligent prescribing of Sectral. The judge concludes that the last date of treatment by the physician was May 22, 1987, and therefore, the summary judgment (which the dissent would affirm) should be upheld because the statute of limitations had run.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Treatment DoctrinePhysician's DutyPatient Unilateral ActionPrescription RefillsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionMedical NegligenceFailure to Diagnose
References
6
Case No. 02-12-00141-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2012

in the Interest of S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., the Children

This case involves an appeal by a mother against the termination of her parental rights to her two children, S.I.-M.G. and S.B.G.-R., by the 431st District Court of Denton County. The Second District of Texas Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The termination was based on grounds of endangering conduct due to the Mother's extensive history of drug abuse, including prescription medications and illegal drugs, which led to S.B.G.-R. being born addicted and multiple removals of the children by the Department of Family and Protective Services. The Mother's challenges regarding jury instructions on wealth and the attorney ad litem's representation of S.I.-M.G. were overruled, with the appellate court finding no error in the lower court's decision.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbusePrescription Drug AddictionChild WelfareAppellate ReviewBest Interest of ChildSubstance Abuse TreatmentProbation ViolationJury Instructions
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 634 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