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. M2000-00547-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2001

Mary Louise Goodman Case v. Billy Ray Case

This is a divorce case involving Mary Louise Goodman Case (Wife) and Billy Ray Case (Husband) after 25 years of marriage. The trial court granted a divorce to the Wife on grounds of the Husband's inappropriate marital conduct, divided marital property, but failed to determine the value of the Wife's pension plan, and did not award spousal support to the Husband. The Husband appealed, arguing against the divorce, the property division, and the lack of alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the divorce and the decision not to award alimony but reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to classify, value, and equitably divide the Wife's pension plan as marital property.

DivorceMarital PropertyPension DivisionSpousal SupportAlimonyInappropriate Marital ConductDisability BenefitsEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewCredibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Consolidated Independent School District v. Garcia

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) when replaced by an older worker. The Court held that for a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must demonstrate replacement by someone younger. Because Gloria Garcia, who was 48 when fired, was replaced by a three-year older Mexican-American woman, she failed to meet this requirement. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and dismissed Garcia's age discrimination suit, clarifying that while direct evidence of discrimination remains an option, the prima facie presumption is not available in such replacement cases.

Age DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Prima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting FrameworkReplacement by Older WorkerSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionJurisdictional FactsDirect EvidenceEmployment Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Barrington v. Hudson Valley Fruit Juice, Inc.

The claimant's decedent, a factory laborer, suffered an unwitnessed intracerebral hemorrhage at work and subsequently died. The employer controverted the claim for workers’ compensation death benefits. A WCLJ initially closed the case for lack of prima facie medical evidence, but a subsequent WCLJ reopened and found sufficient medical evidence based on the presumption of compensability in Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). The Workers’ Compensation Board then rescinded this decision, ruling that claimant's medical reports did not constitute prima facie evidence of a causal relationship. On appeal, the Court found that the Board erred in requiring prima facie medical evidence in this unwitnessed death case, compelling the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption. The Court also noted that the employer had not presented evidence to rebut this presumption. The decision of the Board was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntracerebral HemorrhageUnwitnessed DeathPresumption of CompensabilityCausal RelationshipPrima Facie Medical EvidenceBoard ErrorReversalRemittalDeath Benefits Claim
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyman v. Schwartz

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss several counterclaims filed by defendant Arthur Schwartz. Plaintiff, identified as Hyman from prior related cases, initially sued Schwartz and his law firm for legal malpractice and emotional distress. Schwartz, a licensed attorney who previously represented Hyman, subsequently asserted four counterclaims: breach of contract, quantum meruit, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court denied Hyman's motion to dismiss these counterclaims. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order. It affirmed the denial of dismissal for the quantum meruit counterclaim, finding Schwartz adequately stated a cause of action. However, the appellate court reversed the denial and dismissed the counterclaims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort, concluding that documentary evidence contradicted the breach of contract claim and the alleged conduct for emotional distress and prima facie tort did not meet the required legal thresholds. The court also affirmed the denial of Hyman's motion to renew her claims regarding proper service on Schwartz's former partners, Stuart Lichten and Daniel Bright.

Legal MalpracticeCounterclaimsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureService of Process
References
35
Case No. 05-20-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

William J. Kanen v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc.

William J. Kanen appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of his former employer, DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., in an age discrimination case. Kanen, who was 69 at the time of his termination, argued that he established a prima facie case of age discrimination and that DeWolff's reason for termination (poor performance) was pretextual. The Fifth District Court of Appeals in Texas at Dallas reviewed the trial court's decision de novo, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis for discrimination cases. The Court found that Kanen presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether DeWolff's nondiscriminatory reason for discharge was pretextual. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding a jury could determine the termination was motivated by age discrimination.

age discriminationsummary judgmentemployment lawTexaspretextprima facie caseMcDonnell Douglasburden-shiftingFifth Circuitperformance evaluation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stokes v. Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim in 1999 for repetitive-motion injuries, and the case was initially closed in February 2000 by a WCLJ who found an occupational disease but no prima facie evidence of permanency, allowing for reopening. The case was reopened in 2001 to include shoulder injuries, leading to the involvement of prior employers General Motors Corporation and ITT Automotive for Workers’ Compensation Law § 44 apportionment. In 2003, claimant was deemed permanently partially disabled, and liability was apportioned, with all employers subsequently filing claims for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund. The WCLJ later determined that the case was "truly closed" in February 2000, making the reimbursement claims timely, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this determination. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the case was indeed truly closed in February 2000, which made the employers' reimbursement claims timely, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Motion InjuryCase ReopeningPermanency AssessmentApportionmentSpecial Disability FundTimeliness of ClaimWorkers’ Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theresa J. v. Patricia J.

This case involves an appeal in a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, where the respondent mother was accused of neglecting her three children due to drug misuse. Evidence presented included the mother testing positive for cocaine during childbirth, her admission to occasional cocaine use, and the premature birth and death of one child due to renal failure. While the majority found a prima facie case of neglect warranting a continued fact-finding hearing, the dissenting justice argued that a prima facie case was not established, citing a lack of proof for repeated drug misuse or a direct causal link between the mother's drug use and the child's impairment or death. Both the majority and dissent agreed to remand the case for further proceedings, especially considering a potential subsequent drug arrest of the respondent.

NeglectChild ProtectionDrug MisuseCocainePremature BirthInfant DeathPrima Facie CaseRemandFamily Court ActAppeal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 23,339 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