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

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poly-America, L.P.

Johnny Luna, an employee of Poly-America, L.P., filed a retaliatory-discharge suit after sustaining a work injury and being fired. His employment contract included an arbitration agreement with provisions limiting remedies (no punitive damages or reinstatement), requiring fee-splitting, and limiting discovery. Luna challenged the agreement's unconscionability. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the remedy-limitation provisions were substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law but were severable due to a severability clause. The Court also held that the trial court properly left the assessment of fee-splitting and discovery-limitation unconscionability to the arbitrator, as applied during the arbitration process, and conditionally granted Poly-America's petition for mandamus to compel arbitration after severance of the voided remedy clauses.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ContractSeverability ClauseFee-SplittingDiscovery LimitationsPunitive DamagesReinstatement
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

Noah S. Bunker Paul Carrell Everett Brew Houston, Jr. W. Andrew Buckholz Scott J. Leighty Jad L. Davis And Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. No. 08-17-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2018

Ridge Natural Resources, LLC, Calvin Smajstrla, Christopher Hawa and Wilson Hawa v. Double Eagle Royalty, LP

This case involves an arbitration dispute between two oil companies, Ridge Natural Resources, L.L.C. (appellant) and Double Eagle Royalty, L.P. (appellee), concerning a disputed royalty interest in minerals in Winkler County, Texas. Double Eagle, as successor-in-interest to the original lessors (McDaniels), sued to quiet title, and Ridge moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in a 'Royalty Lease' signed with the McDaniels. The trial court denied Ridge's motion, finding the arbitration clause unconscionable. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the agreement's cap on punitive damages is against public policy and must be severed, but found that Double Eagle failed to provide sufficient evidence to dissolve the arbitration agreement entirely on unconscionability grounds. The case was remanded with instructions to compel arbitration after severing the punitive damages prohibition.

Arbitration AgreementContract EnforceabilityUnconscionabilitySubstantive UnconscionabilityProcedural UnconscionabilityExemplary DamagesPublic PolicySeverability ClauseOil and Gas LeaseMineral Royalty Interest
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

This case involves Medicaid recipients, providers, and an association in El Paso County, Texas, suing the Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Albert Hawkins. Plaintiffs allege that HHSC's low Medicaid payment rates have led to inadequate access to medical services for El Paso Medicaid recipients, violating several provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Court found that Recipient Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Equal Access had standing for claims under the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, but Provider Plaintiffs did not have third-party standing for their patients. All other claims under the Medicaid Act, Equal Protection Clause, and most of the Supremacy Clause claim were dismissed. The Court ultimately found only one cognizable claim: Recipient Plaintiffs' claim that HHSC's low payment rates violate the Equal Access Provision. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal due to substantial grounds for difference of opinion on controlling questions of law, particularly concerning standing and the private right of action under the Equal Access Provision post-Gonzaga.

Medicaid ActHealthcare AccessPayment RatesStanding DoctrinePrivate Right of ActionSupremacy ClauseEqual Protection ClauseRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionInterlocutory Appeal
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Yarn Liquidation, Inc.

This memorandum addresses the priority of severance pay claims filed by fourteen former employees of SCT Yarns, Inc., a debtor in a Chapter 11 liquidation case. The court examines whether these claims qualify for third priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(3) for compensation earned within 90 days pre-petition, or first priority as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1) for services rendered post-petition. Adopting the majority rule, the court determines that severance pay is an administrative expense only to the extent earned by service during the bankruptcy case and a third priority claim only if earned within the 90-day pre-petition period. The court calculates the amounts entitled to first priority as administrative expenses for eleven employees who continued service post-petition and acknowledges that the pre-petition severance pay for all fourteen employees may qualify for third priority, subject to a $4,000 limit.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 LiquidationSeverance PayPriority ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesEmployee CompensationBankruptcy Code § 507Pre-petition ClaimsPost-petition ClaimsCreditor Priority
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,871 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