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. ADJ10813026
Regular
May 27, 2025

Noureddine Manser vs. Return-to-Work Supplement Program

Applicant Noureddine Manser sought reconsideration of a November 9, 2023 finding that he was not entitled to a second Return-to-Work Supplement Program (RTWSP) benefit under Rule 17302(b), which prohibits a second benefit unless for a subsequent injury. Applicant contended the word "injury" should include a continuing injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the November 9, 2023 Findings of Fact, declining to interpret "injury" as a continuing injury and noting that the validity of Rule 17302(b) is subject to judicial review in the Superior Court, not the Appeals Board. The Board also asserted its jurisdiction to review the WCJ's denial despite arguments to the contrary.

Return-to-Work Supplement ProgramRTWSPRule 17302(b)vocational rehabilitationsubsequent injurySJDBVQMEtemporary total disabilityWCABLabor Code section 139.48
References
8
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Robert Garcia, a pipe-fitter's helper, filed a workers' compensation claim after a work-related injury. He was subsequently terminated by Wyler Industrial Works, Inc., who claimed it was due to a low budget and his unavailability for Saturday work. Garcia sued for wrongful termination, and a jury found Wyler discharged him for filing the claim, awarding $60,000 in damages. Wyler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for both liability and damages, as well as errors in prejudgment interest and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support Garcia's termination due to his workers' compensation claim and the damage award, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule
References
61
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nathan Brewer, an employee of Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., sustained a work-related back injury in 1992 and received a lump sum workers’ compensation award. Following an aggravation of his injury in 1994 and further surgeries, Mr. Brewer filed a petition for enlarged benefits under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The trial court initially granted these benefits, but the workers’ compensation panel reversed, asserting that lump sum payments were final, the petition was time-barred, and findings were insufficient. The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between statutes regarding lump sum finality and award enlargement, holding that lump sum awards can be enlarged if criteria are met, but § 241(a)(2) is not the correct avenue for claims involving subsequent injuries or increased anatomical disability. Consequently, the Court dismissed Brewer’s petition without prejudice, directing that his claim for additional impairment should have been filed as a new, separate action.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump Sum Payment FinalityAward EnlargementAnatomical ImpairmentIndustrial Disability RatingSubsequent Work InjuryAggravation of Prior InjuryStatute of Limitations AccrualDisability Benefits ReconsiderationSpinal Disc Rupture
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powell v. Blalock Plumbing & Electric & HVAC, Inc.

William M. Barker dissents from the majority and concurring opinions in a permanent partial disability case. The core issue is whether the employee's award should be two and a half or four times his medical impairment rating under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241. Barker argues the employee is limited to two and a half times because he believes the employee made a meaningful return to work and earned a wage equal to or greater than before the injury. While reluctantly agreeing with the majority's interpretation of "wage" based on precedent, Barker strongly disagrees that the employee failed to make a "meaningful return to work." He asserts that working eighty percent of pre-injury hours, combined with continued employment at the same wage and benefits, constitutes a meaningful return, especially given the employee's ability to work additional hours on his own construction business, which he believes indicates the reduction in hours with the defendant is not due to pain from the injury.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawImpairment RatingWage DefinitionMeaningful Return to WorkTennessee Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationMultiplier CalculationEconomic LossJudicial Dissent
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14,533 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