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

Martinez v. Schlumberger Ltd.

This case involves an action removed from state court, where plaintiffs William Martinez, Frank Ditta, and Lafayette Kirksey sued Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation. Plaintiffs' state-law claims of fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, and gross negligence, stemming from alleged misrepresentations about future early retirement benefits, were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Plaintiffs contended that Schlumberger falsely denied considering enhanced early retirement packages, leading them to retire before a new Voluntary Early Retirement Plan (VERP) was announced. The court construed the action as a breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA and adopted a version of the 'serious consideration' test to determine when an employer's duty to disclose plan changes arises. Finding that the VERP was not under 'serious consideration' until after the plaintiffs' retirement, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims, including the breach of fiduciary duty and an unresolved claim for interest on profit sharing plans.

ERISAFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentEarly Retirement PlanMisrepresentationEmployee BenefitsSerious Consideration TestPreemptionFraudNegligence
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jennings v. Minco Technology Labs, Inc.

Brenda L. Jennings sued her employer, Mineo Technology Labs, Inc., seeking to prevent the company from implementing a random drug-testing program for employees via urinalysis, arguing it violated common-law privacy rights. The company counterclaimed, asserting its plan was lawful. The trial court sided with the employer, declaring the plan lawful and enforceable, denying Jennings relief, and awarding attorney's fees to the company. On appeal, Jennings challenged both the lawfulness of the plan and the award of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that 'at-will' employment allows employers to modify terms, and an employee's consent to testing, even if economically compelled, negates an unlawful invasion of privacy. The court also upheld the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion.

Employment LawDrug TestingPrivacy RightsAt-Will EmploymentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefEmployer RightsEmployee RightsCommon LawContract Law
References
12
Case No. E2015-01256-COA-R3-JV-FILED-MAY 16, 2016
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2016

In re Mason E.

This case concerns an appeal by Father, Jody E., from a circuit court's finding of severe child abuse and the admission of his minor children's positive drug test results for methamphetamine. The Tennessee Department of Children's Services initiated proceedings after the children were found in a home associated with meth manufacturing. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the drug test results were admissible under the business records exception to hearsay and that sufficient clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Father knowingly exposed his children to an environment likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, thus constituting severe child abuse.

Child AbuseMethamphetamine ExposureDrug TestingHair Follicle TestBusiness Records ExceptionHearsayExpert TestimonyConfrontation ClauseParental RightsDependency and Neglect
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Scott

Old Republic appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial following a default judgment entered against it in favor of Lola Scott, an employee who filed a workers' compensation claim. Old Republic, the workers' compensation carrier for ARA Food Services, argued that its failure to file a timely answer was due to mistake or accident, not intentional or conscious indifference, satisfying the first prong of the Craddock test. The trial court and court of appeals had affirmed the denial, but the appellate court found that Old Republic's uncontroverted affidavits established the first Craddock element. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of the remaining Craddock test elements.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestWorkers' Compensation ClaimConscious IndifferenceMistake or AccidentMeritorious DefenseAppellate ProcedureReversal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Dowleyne v. New York City Transit Authority

This case concerns Leslie Dowleyne, a bus driver for the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), who was disciplined after allegedly refusing a random drug test by failing to provide an adequate urine sample. The NYCTA's Medical Review Officer determined her failure constituted a refusal under federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. An arbitration panel initially sided with Dowleyne, but the Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the motion to confirm the arbitration award, granted the cross-petition, and vacated the arbitration award. The court ruled that strong public policy considerations, as embodied in specific federal DOT regulations, mandate the removal of employees who refuse drug tests from safety-sensitive functions, overriding any contrary provisions in a collective bargaining agreement.

Drug TestingBus DriverSafety-Sensitive FunctionArbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionDOT RegulationsFederal Transit AdministrationUrine SampleReinstatementCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,914 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