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

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 1951

Farrar v. Board of Trustees of Employees Retirement System

Petitioners Gus Farrar and Scott Gaines filed a mandamus suit to compel the Boards of Trustees of the Teachers Retirement System and Employees Retirement System to grant them prior service credit from the other system, as per Senate Bill 438 (Art. 6228c). Farrar, an employee, sought credit for prior teaching service, and Gaines, a teacher, sought credit for prior state employee service. The Boards refused, arguing Art. 6228c was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, holding that the Teachers and Employees Retirement Amendments of the Texas Constitution are distinct and intended to retain specific groups in their respective fields. The Court ruled that allowing cross-system credit and fund transfers under Art. 6228c would be antagonistic to the amendments' dominant purposes, thus deeming the act unconstitutional.

Retirement SystemsTeacher RetirementEmployee RetirementTexas ConstitutionMandamusStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawPrior Service CreditPublic EmployeesState Employees
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. 2018-06-1969
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2019

Kent, Robert v. Delatorre Art Design, Inc.

The claimant, Robert Kent, an artisan, sustained a left shoulder injury while working at the Nashville Zoo. He sought workers' compensation benefits from Delatorre Art Design, Inc., which hired him, alleging he was an employee. Delatorre contended Kent was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to benefits. The trial court sided with Delatorre, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Board after considering statutory factors for determining employment status. The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding that Kent was unlikely to establish an employer-employee relationship at trial, and thus affirmed the denial of benefits.

Independent contractoremployer-employee relationshipworkers' compensation benefitsartisan injuryoccupational injurytemporary workstatutory factorsright to controlmethod of paymentNashville Zoo
References
5
Case No. 650775/2013, 158002/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2013

Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

This opinion addresses two consolidated actions challenging the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s "pay what you wish" admissions policy. Plaintiffs alleged violations of General Business Law § 349, a 1893 statute, and breach of a 1878 lease with the City of New York, asserting a right to free admission. Justice Kornreich granted the Museum’s motion to dismiss. The court found no private right of action under the 1893 appropriations act and determined that plaintiffs, as purported third-party beneficiaries of the lease, had no greater rights than the City, which had tacitly and explicitly approved the admission policy for over 40 years. The decision underscored that compelling a de minimis payment constituted de facto free access and that plaintiffs' lawsuit would ultimately undermine the Museum’s ability to fund its public access and operations.

Museum Admission PolicyPay What You WishGeneral Business Law § 349Lease AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryPrivate Right of ActionAppropriations StatuteInjunctive ReliefMotion to DismissMetropolitan Museum of Art
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenberg Development Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc.

Imperial Performing Arts, Inc. (IPA) sued Rosenberg Development Corporation (RDC) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. RDC filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming governmental immunity from suit. The trial court partially granted and partially denied RDC's plea. On interlocutory appeal, RDC challenged the denial of its plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's partial denial, holding that economic development corporations like RDC generally do not possess common law governmental immunity from suit for contract claims. The court further clarified that the statutory immunity granted to Type B corporations under Local Government Code § 505.106 is limited to tort claims and immunity from liability for damages, neither of which supported RDC's plea for immunity from suit in this contract dispute.

Governmental ImmunityEconomic Development CorporationPlea to JurisdictionBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsPolitical SubdivisionsCommon Law ImmunityStatutory Immunity
References
34
Case No. 07-17-00138-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2018

Anthony D. Colby v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company A/K/A Utica National Insurance Company

Anthony D. Colby appealed a trial court's dismissal of his workers' compensation claims against Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance Company (Utica). Colby, who sustained an on-the-job injury in 2009, had previously exhausted some administrative remedies related to the appointment of a designated doctor. The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) Appeals Panel upheld a decision that Dr. Lisa Persyn was not properly appointed as a designated doctor. However, Colby's subsequent district court claims for denial of medical treatment, improper claims handling, and civil rights violations did not directly challenge the DWC's specific decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of Utica's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss, concluding that Colby failed to exhaust the necessary administrative remedies for the particular claims he asserted in the district court, as these matters fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DWC.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewMedical BenefitsClaims HandlingDesignated DoctorExhaustion DoctrineTrial Court Dismissal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates v. City of Fort Worth

Richard L. Gates, an employee of the City of Fort Worth, suffered an on-the-job injury in 1975 and subsequently received a worker's compensation settlement. After obtaining a light duty medical release, the City informed Gates it could not re-employ him due to the unavailability of light duty positions. Gates filed suit, alleging wrongful termination in violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art 8307c, claiming discrimination for pursuing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Fort Worth and its personnel director, F. L. Priore. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Article 8307c does not apply to public employees covered by Article 8309h, and upheld the doctrine of governmental immunity.

Worker's CompensationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPublic EmployeesTexas LawRetaliation ClaimAppellate ReviewFort Worth
References
1
Case No. SBA 077625, SBA 073703, SBA 085498
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

DAVID DISANDRO vs. HAAGEN PRINTING & OFFSET, GRAPHIC ARTS, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY

The Appeals Board granted Safeco's reconsideration, rescinding the prior award finding Safeco liable for contribution. Safeco is not responsible for benefits related to a cumulative trauma injury from Graphic Arts because it did not provide insurance coverage during that employment period. The Board clarified that the applicable statute regarding the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) does not compel contribution from solvent insurers who were not on risk during the specific period of injury.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationContributionCumulative Trauma InjuryInsurance CoverageCalifornia IndemnitySafeco InsuranceAllianz InsuranceGraphic ArtsHaagen Printing
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

This case involves a patent infringement suit concerning United States Patent No. 3,690,495, a child-resistant closure. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the patent was invalid due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The court examined the patent's clutching and biasing functions, comparing them to prior art patents including Maki, Turner '411, and Petronelli. The court found that 'Turner '495' was a combination patent comprising elements already present in prior art and that its elements performed the same functions, thus failing the test for non-obviousness. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, declaring the patent invalid.

Patent LawChild-Resistant ClosureObviousnessSummary Judgment35 U.S.C. § 103Combination PatentPrior ArtPatent InvalidityFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Clutching Mechanism
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 8,503 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