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

VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A.

This action involves a credit default swap (CDS) transaction between Plaintiff VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Limited and Defendant Citibank, N.A. VCG, as the protection seller, challenged Citibank's demands for additional collateral and its declaration of a "Floating Amount Event" related to an "Implied Writedown" on a reference obligation. Citibank counterclaimed for VCG's breach of contract. The court granted Citibank's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding Citibank's actions proper and VCG's challenges, including claims for rescission and unjust enrichment, without merit. The court concluded that VCG waived its right to dispute the collateral demands by continuing to perform under the contract and failing to utilize the agreed-upon dispute resolution mechanism.

Credit Default SwapCollateralized Debt ObligationVariation MarginImplied WritedownFloating Amount EventBreach of ContractJudgment on PleadingsUnilateral MistakeGood Faith and Fair DealingUnjust Enrichment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goins v. Hitchcock I.S.D.

Plaintiff Rolisha Goins filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Hitchcock Independent School District (HISD) and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on gender and race under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C § 1981, Title VII, and Title IX. Goins, a former coach, claimed HISD failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement regarding gender inequality in athletics, misrepresented her salary, and engaged in a campaign to ostracize her. She moved for the appointment of a Special Master to oversee discovery, citing lack of cooperation from HISD. Defendants filed an unopposed partial motion to dismiss all claims against the individual defendants. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a Special Master, finding it unwarranted and that Defendants had cooperated. The Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that official capacity claims were redundant, Title IX and Title VII do not permit individual liability, § 1981 claims lacked factual basis for racial discrimination, § 1983 claims failed to allege adverse employment action, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were preempted or lacked outrageous conduct.

Gender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment LawMotion to DismissSpecial MasterTitle VIITitle IXSection 1983Section 1981Official Capacity
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frazier v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

This workers' compensation appeal, heard by the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel, addressed challenges by the employer and insurer regarding a trial court's referral to a special master, an impairment finding, and a permanent partial disability award. The panel ruled that while referring main issues to a special master is prohibited, the procedural error in this instance did not warrant reversal. After evaluating various medical opinions, the panel gave equal weight to the assessments of Dr. Smith and Dr. Talmadge, establishing an 8 percent whole body medical impairment. Consequently, the panel reduced the permanent partial disability benefits award to 20 percent to the body as a whole, modifying and affirming the trial court's original judgment.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingSpecial Master ReferenceAppellate ReviewAMA GuidelinesShoulder InjuryProcedural ErrorTrial Court Judgment ModificationDisability Benefits Reduction
References
6
Case No. 80 Civil 4699
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1982

Wallace v. INTERN. ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, ETC.

Plaintiff Oscar L. Wallace sued the International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots and its Ex. President Capt. Robert J. Lowen after his application for union membership was denied. He alleged wrongful denial of admission, termination of applicant status, denial of due process, equal protection violations, refusal to refer to job assignments, violation of his right to sue, conspiracy, and racial discrimination. The court dismissed most of his claims, including those based on alleged membership rights and civil rights violations, finding he had no vested right to membership and failed to show state action or a conspiracy. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the claim for breach of fair representation, acknowledging the union's duty to an applicant regarding job referrals.

Union MembershipFair RepresentationDue ProcessCivil RightsFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLabor LawConspiracyRacial DiscriminationEmployment Rights
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1985

Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class for numerous personal injury asbestos cases in the Eastern District of Texas. District Judge Robert M. Parker found that common "state of the art" issues regarding asbestos health risks and product defects predominated over individual concerns, making a class action superior for efficient resolution. The court denied a mandatory "limited fund" class under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) due to insufficient evidence of impending insolvency. The decision outlines a bifurcated trial plan: a class-wide phase for state of the art and punitive damages, followed by individual mini-trials for exposure and actual damages. The court also denied a motion for reconsideration and granted an interlocutory appeal, further appointing a Special Master to profile class claims for the jury.

Asbestos LitigationClass ActionRule 23(b)(3)Personal InjuryToxic TortProduct LiabilityPunitive DamagesState of the ArtJudicial EconomyEastern District of Texas
References
30
Case No. ADJ3046670
Regular
Dec 14, 2018

CAROL ALLISON vs. MERTZ DEL AMO MOBILE HOME PARK, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case involves CIGA's petition for reconsideration of a prior Board decision. The Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the prior decision was not final as it rescinded a prior order and referred issues to a special master. The Board also denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and distinguished CIGA's cited precedent regarding special masters. Ultimately, the Board found no grounds for reconsideration or removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSpecial MasterLabor Code section 5813Final OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold Issue
References
7
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. 79-CV-53
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Davis Acoustical Corp.

This action stems from a civil contempt proceeding against the defendants for violating the overtime pay and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), originally enjoined by a 1979 Consent Judgment. A special master was appointed to investigate the alleged violations, determine employee status, calculate back wages, and address prejudgment interest and attorney's fees. The special master found a pattern of FLSA violations, concluded that individuals classified as 'independent contractors' were in fact 'employees' under the FLSA, and recommended a fine of $1,318,648.93, plus simple prejudgment interest. The court reviewed numerous objections from both the defendants and the plaintiff, ultimately upholding the special master's findings regarding the violations, employee classification, the admission of evidence, damages for unidentified employees, and the award of prejudgment interest. The court also affirmed the special master's refusal to compound interest daily or award attorney's fees to the plaintiff, and confirmed the authority to order payment schedules. Consequently, the court accepted the special master's report in its entirety and ordered the defendants to pay the specified fine and prejudgment interest.

FLSA violationsovertime payrecord-keeping violationscivil contemptspecial masterback wagesprejudgment interestindependent contractor statusemployee misclassificationcompensatory fines
References
23
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,891 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