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

Matter of Taitt v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

The claimant, a bus driver residing in the Bronx, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an injury. Her counsel requested a change of venue from Harlem to White Plains, citing the claimant's anxiety due to a prior assault in Harlem and difficulty traveling due to knee and back conditions. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the request, referencing a policy that disallows venue changes for public benefit corporations unless the employer is located in the requested district. The WCLJ also imposed a $750 penalty on claimant's counsel for lacking reasonable grounds. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed both the denial of the venue change and the penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no reasonable basis for the venue change and upholding the penalty, noting counsel's history of similar actions.

Venue ChangePenalty AssessmentWorkers Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewPublic Employer PolicyCounsel SanctionAnxietyTravel DifficultyHarlem District OfficeWhite Plains
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Case No. 03-00-00287-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2000

Helen F. Castellow v. Swiftex Manufacturing Corporation, Individually and D/B/A Swiftex, Inc.

Appellant Helen F. Castellow sued her employer, Swiftex Manufacturing Corporation, for negligence after an on-the-job injury. Swiftex, a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation insurance, offered a private benefit plan that required employees to waive common-law negligence remedies. Castellow, after being injured and receiving benefits under the plan, filed a lawsuit, ignoring the waiver. The trial court granted Swiftex's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Castellow argued the waiver violated public policy. The appellate court held that the waiver was void as against public policy because it thwarted the legislative intent of the Workers' Compensation Act by offering fewer benefits and greater employer immunity than the statutory scheme. The court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPublic PolicyWaiver EnforceabilityEmployer NegligencePrivate Benefit PlanCommon-Law RemediesSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewStatutory ConstructionOpen Courts Doctrine
References
35
Case No. 2014-07-0029
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2015

Smith, Michael v. Sun Products Corporation

Mr. Smith, a process operator for Sun Products Corporation, filed a request for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for carpal tunnel syndrome. He alleged a work-related injury from repetitive motion and reported the diagnosis in July 2014 to his employer. Sun Products Corporation contended that Mr. Smith failed to provide timely notice and lacked sufficient proof of causation for his condition. The Court found that Mr. Smith provided proper and timely notice and had sufficient evidence to likely prevail on the merits regarding the provision of a panel of physicians for his carpal tunnel. Consequently, the Court ordered Sun Products Corporation to provide medical treatment but denied temporary disability benefits due to a lack of expert medical proof establishing a causal connection between the injury and his inability to work.

Carpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsNotice of InjuryCausationExpedited HearingTennessee LawEmployment InjuryDiagnostic TestingEmployer Responsibility
References
11
Case No. 03-99-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2000

Carole Keeton Rylander, as Successor to John Sharp, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, as Successor to Dan Morales, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Bandag Licensing Corporation

This case involves an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas from a district court judgment. The district court awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) a recovery of $503,726 in franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. The central issue was whether BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority to do business in Texas, without physical presence or intrastate business, constituted a 'substantial nexus' for franchise tax purposes under the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that such passive possession was insufficient for taxation. Furthermore, the court found section 112.108 of the Texas Tax Code, which prohibited attorney's fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, unconstitutional, thereby upholding the award of attorney's fees to BLC.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActGovernmental ImmunitySubstantial NexusCertificate of AuthorityInterstate CommerceTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corp.

This Tennessee Court of Appeals opinion addresses an appeal from summary judgments granted to the defendant, Greater Chattanooga Public Television Corporation (WTCI), in an age discrimination and retaliatory discharge lawsuit. Plaintiffs Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, Earlynn Schubert, Cynthia Lowry, and Barbara Dadswell alleged age-based discrimination and wrongful termination under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Kelly Williams, Robert Williams, and Earlynn Schubert on their age discrimination claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's stated reasons for termination. For Barbara Dadswell, the Court affirmed the summary judgment on her age discrimination claim but reversed and remanded her retaliatory discharge claim, concluding that a jury question existed regarding the reasonableness of her belief that copying a Nielsen Report was an illegal activity violating public policy. The case underscores the standards for summary judgment in employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims under Tennessee law.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentTennessee Human Rights ActEmployment LawMcDonnell Douglas TestConstructive DischargeAt-will EmploymentPublic Policy ExceptionBurden Shifting
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 15,173 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