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
Oct 23, 2009

Roll v. Gavitt

Plaintiffs commenced a personal injury action after Gary S. Roll was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that Roll did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the defendant failed to present evidence of the plaintiff's negligence and that the plaintiffs successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding serious injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceRear-end CollisionSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawCervical Spine InjuryPreexisting ConditionMedical ExaminationTriable Issue of Fact
References
7
Case No. 03-08-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2010

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Twelve Oaks Medical Center

This document presents a concurring and dissenting opinion in an appeal before the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin. The case involves Pacific Employers Insurance Company as the appellant and Twelve Oaks Medical Center as the appellee, appealing a district court decision regarding judicial review of a workers' compensation medical dispute resolution. The dissenting justice agrees with the majority that Twelve Oaks Medical Center failed to exercise due diligence in serving the appellant. However, the dissent argues that the majority erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, contending that limitations is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional defect in this context. The dissenting justice would have reversed the district court's order granting remand and instead rendered judgment in favor of Pacific Employers Insurance Company, asserting that the suit was barred by limitations.

Limitations DefenseDue DiligenceAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional DefectsAffirmative DefenseWorkers' CompensationMedical Dispute ResolutionAdministrative LawService of ProcessSummary Judgment Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Wolfson

The claimant, a school teacher, appealed a December 3, 1975 decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a referee's determination that he was ineligible for Special Unemployment Assistance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. Despite working only 10 months, the claimant was paid a 12-month salary, with payments for July and August 1975 deferred until December. He contended that these months did not constitute a paid vacation period under Labor Law § 591(3) because payment was delayed beyond 30 days. However, the court disagreed, citing precedent that teachers paid annually for 12 months are not considered totally unemployed during their non-working months, irrespective of the payment schedule. The court further held that Labor Law § 591 does not apply to situations where a claimant's salary is based on a 12-month period and paid for each of those months. Finding substantial evidence to support the board's determination, the court affirmed the decision.

Unemployment InsuranceSpecial Unemployment Assistance ProgramTotal UnemploymentSchool TeacherPaid VacationLabor Law § 59112-month SalaryBenefit EligibilityAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fenderson v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants

Plaintiffs, Gregory Fenderson, James Summers, and Carmelo Torre, are flight attendants for Trans World Airlines (TWA) and moved for partial summary judgment against TWA and the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA). They alleged violations of section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) concerning IFFA's union security clause. The plaintiffs challenged two amendments to the IFFA's Constitution and Bylaws: a twelve-month "education and orientation period" where new members couldn't vote, and a $250 initiation/readmission fee. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs regarding the education and orientation period, finding it violated the RLA by not offering membership on the same terms and conditions to all. However, the court denied summary judgment concerning the $250 fee, concluding it was uniformly applied and encompassed by "initiation fees" as per the RLA.

Railway Labor ActUnion Security ClauseFlight AttendantsSummary JudgmentUnion Membership RightsInitiation FeesReinstatement FeesVoting RightsLabor OrganizationsCollective Bargaining
References
10
Case No. ANA 0363299
Regular
Jan 03, 2008

JONATHON ROONEY vs. LOWE'S, KEMPER/RELIANCE By SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that an employee can receive compensation for a psychiatric injury even if the underlying physical injury occurred within the first six months of employment. The Board's decision relies on precedent establishing that Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)'s six-month employment requirement is met if the total duration of employment exceeds six months, regardless of whether that period was fully completed before the date of injury. This interpretation aims to prevent fraudulent claims during an employee's initial probationary period, a purpose not undermined when employment continues beyond six months.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementcompensable consequencedate of injuryemployment durationpetition for reconsiderationworkers' compensationCaliforniaapplicant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theodore v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, arguing it was automatically assigned to his employer under 33 U.S.C. § 933(b) because the plaintiff allegedly failed to file suit within six months of accepting a compensation award. The plaintiff contended that the six-month period started later, specifically after an informal conference with a claims examiner in October 1979, where a settlement was reached. Citing Second Circuit precedent, the court clarified that an "award" triggering the six-month period occurs after such an informal conference. Since the plaintiff commenced his action less than a month after this conference, the court found his claim was not barred by the statute and denied the motion to dismiss.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActStatutory assignmentCompensation awardSix-month periodDismissal motionInformal conferenceClaims examinerThird-party liabilityWorker's compensationMaritime law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1999

Doolittle v. County of Broome

Petitioner, a former correction officer, appealed the dismissal of her CPLR article 78 application challenging a determination that granted General Municipal Law § 207-c disability benefits for a limited period. The Supreme Court dismissed her application as untimely, finding it was filed beyond the four-month Statute of Limitations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the petition was time-barred as the attorney received notice of the determination more than four months before filing. The court also noted that, even on the merits, the Hearing Officer's determination of limited benefits for an eight-month period, based on a work-related psychological injury, was supported by sufficient evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewMental HealthWorkplace StressCorrection Officer
References
6
Case No. ADJ12744384
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

CHEYANNE MORENO vs. CALSELECT INSURANCE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 9, 2021. The F&O found that the applicant, Cheyanne Moreno, did not sustain a psychiatric injury due to a sudden and extraordinary event, thereby not qualifying for an exception to the six-month employment requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The WCAB determined that the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) erroneously misassigned the burden of proof regarding the six-month employment period to the applicant. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the F&O and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to properly develop the record on whether the defendant can establish that the applicant's employment period was less than six months.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment requirementburden of proofrescinded Findings and Orderreturn to trial levelAOE/COEpreponderance of the evidencecumulative injury
References
7
Case No. W2011-01807-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2012

Karim Skaan v. Federal Express Corporation

The case involves Karim Skaan's retaliatory discharge claim against Federal Express Corporation. Skaan injured his back twice and was terminated by FedEx pursuant to its medical leave policy, after exhausting his allowable medical leave. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory discharge for his workers' compensation claim. FedEx sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by a contractual six-month limitation period and that the termination was policy-based, not retaliatory. The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits of the retaliatory discharge claim but denied it based on the contractual limitation period. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx, holding that Skaan's lawsuit was time-barred by the six-month contractual limitation period in his employment agreement.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployment AgreementMedical Leave PolicyTime-Barred ClaimUnconscionability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hughes v. Globe Co.

The plaintiff, who had sustained multiple leg injuries and subsequently undergone amputations, sought to reopen his workmen's compensation case, alleging that the subsequent amputations were caused by previously compensated frostbite injuries. The defendants, The Globe Company, Inc., et al., filed a demurrer based on the Statute of Limitations and prior adjudication, which the Circuit Court of Davidson County sustained. On appeal, the Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, citing T.C.A. Sections 50-1025 and 50-1006. The Court ruled that only court-approved settlements or awards payable periodically for more than six months could be reopened and modified. Since the plaintiff's original award was a litigated judgment not payable periodically for more than six months, the Court found the judgment to be final, despite acknowledging the sympathetic nature of the case.

Workmen's CompensationAppealCase ReopeningStatutory InterpretationStatute of LimitationsPrior AdjudicationPermanent Partial DisabilityAmputationFrostbite InjuryJudicial Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,211 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