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. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Case No. W2016-01817-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2017

Jane Doe v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

Jane Doe, a hospitality manager at P.F. Chang's, was robbed and raped by a co-worker during closing procedures. Jane and John Doe filed a tort action against P.F. Chang's, which moved for summary judgment, arguing the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court denied the motion, finding the injuries did not arise out of employment. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, concluding that the sexual assault was not a risk inherent to Ms. Doe’s employment, thus the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation law did not apply, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workplace AssaultSexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentScope of EmploymentCausal ConnectionRobberyTort LawRestaurant Employee
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bright v. Le Moyne College

The plaintiff, a former custodian at Le Moyne College, sued Le Moyne and her union, Teamsters Local 317, alleging sex and racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She claimed adverse employment actions including a shift change, being compelled to punch in for lunch breaks, exclusion from social events, co-workers being instructed not to speak to her, and ignored incident reports, ultimately leading to constructive discharge. The court found that her shift change did not constitute an adverse employment action and that Le Moyne had appropriate procedures for addressing her complaints. Furthermore, the court dismissed the Title VII claim against the Union due to the plaintiff's failure to name it in her EEOC charge. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationEEOC ComplaintPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionShift Rotation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslyn v. Oneida County Sheriff's Department

Decedent, an Operations Lieutenant for the Oneida County Sheriffs Department, suffered a severe myocardial infarction in 1992 after a stressful shift change from day to night. He subsequently lived in a neurovegetative state for four years before dying in 1996 from congestive heart failure. Workers’ compensation claims for both lifetime and death benefits were filed. Medical testimony, including that of an impartial medical specialist, linked the work-related stress from the shift change as a significant contributing factor to his heart attack and subsequent death, despite other pre-existing conditions. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer appealed, contending insufficient proof of an "accident" or causal relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the fatal heart attack was causally related to decedent's employment.

Workers' Compensation AppealWork-related StressMyocardial InfarctionShift ChangeCausationCompensable DeathAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Expert TestimonySubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Difilippo v. Edison

A claimant, residing in New York City and injured in the Bronx, sought to change the venue of his workers' compensation hearings from Manhattan to White Plains, Westchester County, citing convenience. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding that the claimant failed to provide sufficient justification or evidence for the change, as required by Board rules. Additionally, the Board assessed a $250 penalty against the claimant's attorney for seeking review without reasonable grounds under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision in its entirety, upholding both the denial of the venue change and the imposition of the attorney penalty.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAttorney SanctionAppellate ReviewAdministrative DecisionBurden of ProofProcedural RulesSufficiency of EvidenceNew York Labor LawJudicial Authority
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Bank v. Village of Tuckahoe

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that liability for a claimant's left knee injury shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 2005, and compensation benefits were paid until June 20, 2005. In April 2012, a physician requested an MRI, which was performed and revealed a meniscal tear. Subsequently, surgery was authorized and performed in July 2012. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator sought to shift liability to the Special Fund, a move initially rejected by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge but later approved by the Board. The Special Fund appealed the Board's decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the case was not "truly closed" after the MRI request was approved. The court held that the case was reopened in April 2012, within the statutory seven-year period from the date of injury, thus precluding the shifting of liability to the Special Fund. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened Case DoctrineMedical Treatment AuthorizationCase Closure DeterminationSeven-Year RuleLast Payment of CompensationMeniscal TearMRI AuthorizationSurgery Authorization
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wiltsie v. Owens Corning Fiberglass

Claimant suffered a compensable low back injury in 1995, continuing work with restrictions and ADA accommodations. In 2003, the employer's decision to change his shift caused claimant stress, leading his primary physician to diagnose chest pain syndrome, agoraphobia, and depression, and advise him to stop working. Initially awarded benefits for a period, the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently denied further benefits, concluding that claimant's departure from work was for reasons unrelated to his back disability. Claimant appealed, contending his back injury prevented him from the new shift, but the Board's determination, supported by other evidence, found he left due to stress from the shift dispute rather than his back condition. The Board's decision, which included an assessment of claimant's testimony and medical evidence, was affirmed, as it was supported by credible evidence.

Low Back InjuryAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Workplace AccommodationShift Schedule ChangeStress-Related IllnessChest Pain SyndromeAgoraphobiaDepression DiagnosisCredibility of Medical OpinionPermanent Partial Disability
References
5
Case No. Dkt.# 63
Regular Panel Decision

Conner v. Celanese, Ltd.

This case involves two plaintiffs, Hazel Conner and Sytheria Tucker, who sued their employer, Celanese, Ltd., alleging breach of employment contract, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for overtime and retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) for Tucker. The dispute arose from a change in shift structure in 1987 from 8-hour to 12-hour shifts, where employees on 12-hour shifts were paid a lower hourly rate, adjusted to maintain annualized wages, which plaintiffs claim was not properly disclosed. The Court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to factual disputes over wage modification. However, summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the FLSA overtime and retaliation claims, as the 'regular rate' for overtime was the rate actually paid, and alleged actions did not constitute an 'ultimate employment decision.' Summary judgment was also granted for the defendant on Tucker's IIED claim, finding the conduct not extreme and outrageous.

Employment LawBreach of ContractWage DisputeFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime PayFLSA RetaliationSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Texas Law
References
47
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,624 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