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

Norris v. Texas Employment Commission

Norris, an employee of Texaco, appealed the denial of unemployment benefits by the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) and the trial court. His unemployment stemmed from a seven-month strike by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW) union against Texaco following failed contract negotiations. Norris, observing picket lines, returned home and made no attempt to resume work, despite other employees crossing the lines. The TEC ruled his unemployment was due to a stoppage of work caused by a labor dispute, disqualifying him from benefits, a decision upheld by the district court under the substantial evidence rule. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Norris's unemployment was a claimant's stoppage of work and that he failed to make an unconditional offer to return to work, thus upholding his disqualification for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeWork StoppageStrikePicket LineSubstantial Evidence ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnconditional Offer to Return to WorkNew Work Classification
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2004

P & T Iron Works v. Talisman Contracting Co.

P&T Iron Works (P&T), a subcontractor, sued Talisman Contracting Co., Inc. (Talisman), a general contractor, for non-payment on a New York City Housing Authority project. Talisman asserted an affirmative defense claiming P&T failed to pay its employees prevailing wages under Labor Law § 220(3). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted P&T's motion to strike this defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that no private right of action for underpayment of wages exists under Labor Law § 220 without a prior administrative determination in the employee's favor. The court further noted that such an action belongs solely to the underpaid employees and that determination of prevailing wage claims is the exclusive initial province of the fiscal officer in an administrative proceeding, thus Talisman lacked standing.

Contract disputeSubcontractor paymentPrevailing wageAffirmative defenseStandingAdministrative determinationLabor LawAppellate procedureMotion to strikeSuffolk County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brandon v. Sage Corp.

Margie Brandon sued The Sage Corporation alleging racial discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and negligent hiring under Title VII, § 1981, and state law. The claims stemmed from alleged derogatory comments and threats by a supervisor, Carmela Campanian, related to Brandon's hiring of a transgender instructor, Loretta Eure. The Court considered the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Strike. After granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Strike, the Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on all of Brandon's claims. The Court found Brandon failed to establish a prima facie case for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation, and that her negligence claims were preempted or lacked merit, leading to the dismissal of all claims.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIISection 1981RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeNegligent HiringTexas Commission on Human Rights Act
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Robert Garcia, a pipe-fitter's helper, filed a workers' compensation claim after a work-related injury. He was subsequently terminated by Wyler Industrial Works, Inc., who claimed it was due to a low budget and his unavailability for Saturday work. Garcia sued for wrongful termination, and a jury found Wyler discharged him for filing the claim, awarding $60,000 in damages. Wyler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for both liability and damages, as well as errors in prejudgment interest and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support Garcia's termination due to his workers' compensation claim and the damage award, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule
References
61
Case No. 14-CV-2437
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2016

Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case involves a dispute between Time Warner Cable (TWC) and Local No. 3 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers concerning an alleged unlawful work stoppage by the union. TWC sought to confirm an arbitration award that found Local 3 violated a no-strike provision and awarded TWC damages. Local 3 opposed, arguing that no valid Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) existed, a position supported by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) which found no "meeting of the minds" on the CBA. The court ultimately confirmed the arbitration award, ruling that a separate, specific arbitration agreement entered into by the parties was valid and enforceable, regardless of the CBA's status. The court modified the arbitration award by vacating the injunctive relief concerning future work stoppages, finding it exceeded the arbitrator's authority.

Arbitration AgreementLabor DisputeWork StoppageCollective Bargaining AgreementNational Labor Relations BoardSummary JudgmentArbitrator AuthorityPublic Policy ExceptionInjunctive ReliefDamages
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acosta v. Wollett

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding where public employees (petitioners) challenged a determination by the Director of Employee Relations that they engaged in an illegal strike. The employees refused to work at a temporary office location ("Ben's") citing unsafe and substandard conditions, including lack of heating, electrical hazards, and limited exits, and the absence of a certificate of occupancy. While they performed other clerical work, they refused to process unemployment claims at Ben's. The court found their refusal to work at the assigned location, despite their safety concerns, constituted a work stoppage or slowdown in violation of the Civil Service Law, affirming the initial determination and dismissing their petitions. A dissenting opinion argued that the employees' actions were driven by a genuine and reasonable fear for their safety due to the deplorable working conditions.

Public Sector Labor DisputeStrike ProhibitionEmployee Safety ConcernsSubstandard Workplace ConditionsCPLR Article 78 ReviewTaylor Law ViolationWork StoppageCertificate of OccupancyPublic Employee UnionsConcerted Activity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2007

NYP Holdings, Inc. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

NYP Holdings, Inc. (the Post) sued Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), its President Ronald O’Keefe, and John Does Nos. 1-20 under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Post sought an injunction to prevent the NMDU from engaging in work stoppages during negotiations with another union, Local 94. This request stemmed from an incident where NMDU drivers refused to deliver newspapers, with the NMDU citing safety concerns and the Post alleging a sympathy strike. An arbitrator issued a 'status quo order' directing drivers to return to work with increased security. The Court denied the Post’s application for a preliminary injunction, interpreting the arbitrator's order as limited to the specific events of March 1 and finding no sufficient evidence of a 'pattern of strike activity' by the NMDU to warrant prospective injunctive relief under the Norris LaGuardia Act exceptions.

Labor DisputeInjunctionNorris-LaGuardia ActLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration AwardSympathy StrikePreliminary InjunctionFederal Court
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,868 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