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
Jun 16, 2006

Fortis Benefits v. Cantu

Vanessa Cantu suffered severe injuries in a car accident and sued multiple parties. Her medical insurer, Fortis Benefits, intervened, seeking subrogation for medical benefits paid under the policy. After Cantu settled with the defendants, Fortis pursued recovery from Cantu. Cantu argued that the equitable "made whole" doctrine barred Fortis's claim because her total losses exceeded the settlement amount plus the benefits Fortis paid. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Cantu. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "made whole" doctrine does not override an insurer's clear contractual subrogation rights. The Court affirmed the dismissal of Fortis's claims against Ford due to a pretrial agreement.

Insurance SubrogationMade Whole DoctrineContractual SubrogationEquitable SubrogationERISATexas LawInsurance Policy InterpretationPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentSettlement Proceeds
References
28
Case No. ADJ6900339
Regular
Nov 13, 2017

Gloria Frialde vs. TJ Ward, Truck Insurance Exchange, Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision amends a prior award, primarily by removing a finding of industrial injury related to a sleep disorder. The Board found that the applicant's sleep issues stemmed from pain from her physical injuries, not a separate sleep disorder, and thus not separately compensable. The matter is returned to the trial level to re-determine the applicant's permanent disability, considering the corrected findings and specific instructions regarding life pension and permanent disability indemnity rates. The applicant's claim for benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund was denied.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionFindings Orders and AwardCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSubsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundVocational ExpertAlmaraz/Guzman
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
10
Case No. 2015184839
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2015

Lallo, Ralph Joseph v. Marion Environmental, Inc.

Ralph Joseph Lallo, an employee, filed a motion seeking temporary disability benefits against his employer, Marion Environmental, Inc. Mr. Lallo sustained a compensable injury to his right upper extremity on April 2, 2015. The court found that Marion Environmental, Inc. did not terminate Mr. Lallo for cause, and thus, his separation would not preclude him from receiving temporary partial disability benefits. Medical evidence from Dr. Donald Huffman indicated substantial restrictions on Mr. Lallo's right arm, rendering him partially disabled. The court concluded that Mr. Lallo was entitled to temporary partial disability benefits and ordered Marion Environmental, Inc. to pay past benefits from May 1-6, 2015, and from September 28, 2015, onward at a compensation rate of $696.03 per week.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityUpper Extremity InjuryOrthopedic DiagnosisEmployment TerminationMedical Work RestrictionsWage Loss ClaimsExpedited Hearing DecisionEmployer Accommodation DisputeDr. Donald Huffman
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Newman v. Public Oversight Board

This case addresses the interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 16 (2-a) concerning death benefits for a surviving spouse and children upon the spouse’s remarriage. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, a surviving spouse, was entitled to a lump-sum payment, and her two children's benefits should increase to 25% each immediately upon her remarriage. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending that the children's increased benefits should be delayed for two years, arguing for a pervasive 66% wage share maximum. The court rejected this argument, affirming the Board's decision, clarifying that the remarriage lump-sum payment is not an advance but a separate entitlement, and thus, the children's benefits increase immediately.

death benefitssurviving spouseremarriage benefitschildren's compensationWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationlump-sum paymentwage share maximumWorkers' Compensation Board decisionappellate affirmance
References
2
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. Civ. A. No. 3:93-CV-0171-G.
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1993

Mills v. INJURY BENEFITS PLAN OF SCHEPPS-FOREMOST

Walter Mills was injured during his employment and sought benefits under his employer's Injury Benefits Plan. He subsequently filed a civil action alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim under Texas law. Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Mills' claims against the Injury Benefits Plan, finding them preempted by ERISA. However, the court denied the dismissal of Mills' state law claims against Schepps-Foremost, Inc., d/b/a Oak Farms Dairies. Ultimately, the court remanded the remaining state law claims against Schepps-Foremost, Inc. to the County Court at Law Number 5 of Dallas County, Texas, due to a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

ERISA preemptionWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory dischargeTexas lawFederal jurisdictionMotion to dismissRemandEmployee benefitsCivil procedureDallas County
References
18
Case No. 2015-06-0186, 78378-2014, 2015-06-0188, 24788-2015, 2015-06-0189, 24789-2015
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

Barrett, Buster v. Lithko Contracting, Inc.

This case involves employee Buster Barrett's request for medical and temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained on three separate dates: August 27, 2014, January 15, 2015, and January 21, 2015, while working for Lithko Contracting, Inc. The core legal issues were the entitlement to benefits and which insurance carrier, Ace American or Travelers, was responsible, as Lithko changed coverage during the period. The Court found Mr. Barrett entitled to medical treatment for the August 27, 2014 injury, attributing it as the primary causative event, and held Ace American liable. Dr. Scott Standard was appointed as the authorized treating physician. However, the Court denied Mr. Barrett's request for temporary disability benefits, concluding that Lithko had terminated him for cause unrelated to his injuries, rather than an inability to accommodate his work restrictions.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityWork-Related InjuryEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityAuthorized PhysicianTermination for CauseWorkplace SafetyInjury Causation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Pension Trust Fund of the Pension, Hospitalization & Benefit Plan of the Electrical Industry

Plaintiff Claude Jeffries, a retired electrician, sued the Pension Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry under ERISA, seeking to include pension credits from 1969-1975 in his current benefits. He alleged the Plan should have declared a partial termination during a 1975-1979 New York recession, which would have vested his benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of standing and statute of limitations, while plaintiff moved for class certification for similarly affected members. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim for benefits, finding it timely, but granted dismissal for the breach of fiduciary duty claim as time-barred. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied due to insufficient evidence for numerosity, with leave to refile after discovery.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass CertificationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFiduciary DutyPartial TerminationBenefit ForfeitureUnemploymentLabor Union
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Noker v. International Paper Co.

Claimant sustained a compensable left arm injury in 1971 and received benefits. After changing physicians, a malpractice action was initiated against the original treating doctor, Dr. Owen W. Young, but was later dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Workers' Compensation Board denied further benefits, reasoning that discontinuing the third-party malpractice action without carrier consent relieved the carrier of further liability. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, citing Matter of Roach v Hastings Plastics Corp., which clarifies that such a discontinuance only affects compensation attributable to the malpractice, not the initial injury. The case was remitted to the Board to determine the claimant's entitlement to benefits solely for the original accident, separate from any malpractice-related claims.

Workers' Compensation LawMalpractice ActionThird-Party ActionDiscontinuance without ConsentCarrier LiabilityAggravation InjuriesInitial Accident BenefitsRemittal to BoardAppellate ReviewProcedural Issue
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,419 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