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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Petitioner LLT International Inc. moved to vacate an arbitration award rendered against it and in favor of Respondent MCI Telecommunications Corporation. MCI cross-moved to confirm the award. The District Court found the arbitration award to be internally inconsistent and that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the controlling agreement by failing to account for unpaid monthly retainer fees and invoices. The court rejected LLT's claims of evident partiality and bias by the arbitration panel, finding no facts to support such a conclusion. Consequently, the court granted LLT's motion to vacate, denied MCI's cross-motion, vacated the arbitration award, and remanded the matter to the arbitrators for reconsideration of both parties' claims, dismissing the action with leave to renew.

Arbitration AwardVacaturRemand to ArbitratorsContractual AgreementFederal Arbitration ActArbitrator BiasInconsistent AwardBreach of ContractCommercial DisputeJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
22
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1992

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Shari Shapiro Gordon, an Orthodox Jewish woman, filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against MCI Telecommunications Corp. under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Gordon alleged that MCI refused to hire her for a Staff Assistant position due to her need to leave work early on Fridays during the fall and winter for Sabbath observance. MCI moved for summary judgment, contending that Gordon failed to establish a prima facie case and that accommodating her religious practices would impose an undue hardship. The court denied MCI's motion, finding that Gordon had presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude a prima facie case of discrimination. Furthermore, MCI's claims of undue hardship were deemed speculative, lacking concrete evidence regarding actual operational disruptions or financial burdens. The case will proceed to trial.

Religious DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSabbath ObservanceUndue HardshipReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseFederal District Court
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case addresses when a creditor's claim against a debt guarantor accrues under Texas law. Mid-South Telecommunications Company loaned $250,000 to VidiMedix Corporation, with Norman K. Best and Philip W. Faris, Jr. serving as guarantors. VidiMedix defaulted on the promissory note on December 31, 1999, prompting Mid-South to demand payment from the guarantors. Mid-South filed suit against Best and Faris in May 2004 for breach of contract under the guaranty. Best and Faris successfully argued that the claim was barred by the four-year statute of limitations, contending the cause of action accrued upon VidiMedix's initial default. The district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Best and Faris was affirmed on appeal, with the court concluding that Mid-South's claim against the guarantors accrued on December 31, 1999.

Statute of LimitationsGuaranty AgreementBreach of ContractDebt AccrualSummary JudgmentTexas Civil PracticePromissory NoteCreditor RightsDebtor DefaultAbsolute Guaranty
References
23
Case No. 01-23-00520-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2024

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This appeal involves a dispute between NexGen Broadband, LLC and Quanta Telecommunication Services, LLC over an unpaid invoice for a fiber optic project. Quanta sued NexGen for breach of contract, fraud, and declaratory judgment. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Quanta for $1,309,234 after NexGen failed to respond to the motion. NexGen appealed, raising several issues including the trial court's failure to rule on a hearing motion, the granting of summary judgment "by default," the finality of the nonsuit order, and the denial of a motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the proceedings or the implicit denial of NexGen's motions.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionMotion for New TrialRule 166aRule 11 AgreementNon-suit
References
98
Case No. 1:11-CV-330
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case concerns multiple Emergency Communications Districts (ECDs) in Tennessee, led by Hamilton County ECD, suing BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC (d/b/a AT&T Tennessee) for allegedly under-billing, under-collecting, and under-remitting 911 emergency service charges. The plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Tennessee False Claims Act, the Emergency Communications District Law (ECD Law), breach of fiduciary duty, various misrepresentation claims (fraudulent, negligent, and concealment), and common law negligence, also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims related to the ECD Law (Count II) and negligence/negligence per se (Count VII). However, it allowed the False Claims Act, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and declaratory/injunctive relief claims to proceed. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, deeming it premature.

911 Emergency ServicesTelecommunicationsTennessee False Claims ActEmergency Communications District LawBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent MisrepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent Injunction
References
51
Case No. 03-04-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2006

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case addresses the accrual of a creditor's claim against a debt guarantor. Mid-South Telecommunications Company loaned money to VidiMedix Corporation, with Norman K. Best and Philip W. Faris, Jr. as guarantors. VidiMedix defaulted on December 31, 1999. Mid-South sued Best and Faris in May 2004 for breach of guaranty. Best and Faris argued the four-year statute of limitations barred the claim, contending it accrued on the default date. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment for Best and Faris. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Mid-South's claim against the guarantors accrued on December 31, 1999, when VidiMedix defaulted, thus the claims were time-barred.

Contract LawGuarantyStatute of LimitationsDebt DefaultBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCreditor ClaimsPromissory NoteTexas Law
References
23
Case No. W2010-01825-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2011

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. sued Shundra Y. Young and Maureen F. Kinsella for damages following a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when an unidentified white SUV caused Kinsella to swerve, leading Young to collide with Bellsouth's cross-connect box. Initially, the trial court struck defendants' attempts to assign comparative fault to the unidentified nonparty but later allowed references to the nonparty during trial for contextual purposes, though not for fault attribution by the jury. The jury ultimately found no fault with either defendant, prompting Bellsouth's appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, citing precedent that allows for broad allocation of fault to all persons involved in an injury-causing event, even unidentified ones, to ensure fair apportionment of liability.

Comparative FaultUnidentified TortfeasorNonparty DefenseMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsProximate CauseJoint and Several LiabilitySudden EmergencyTennessee Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case addresses a challenge to respondent's determination concerning prevailing wage schedules for telecommunication workers in New York. The respondent had merged voice and data telecommunications work into a single "telecommunication worker" category and adopted a multi-tiered step rate wage schedule, asserting progression was based solely on longevity. Petitioners, including Local 363 of the IBEW, argued that this schedule was flawed as progression through step rates was contingent on skill mastery and training, effectively making lower-tier workers trainees. The court, citing Labor Law § 220 (3), found evidence supporting the petitioners' claim that advancement required acquired skills, not just time. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's judgment, annulled the respondent's determination, and granted the petition, concluding that adopting the full step rate schedule was arbitrary and capricious.

Wage disputeTelecommunication workersPrevailing wage lawLabor Law § 220Step rate wage scheduleApprenticeship programSkill-based progressionLongevity-based payJudicial reviewArticle 78 proceeding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The petitioner, a telecommunication installation contractor, sought judicial review of a determination by the respondent, which found the petitioner's failure to pay correct benefits and wages to be willful under Labor Law § 220-b (3) (b). The petitioner challenged the factual basis for the willfulness finding, contending the evidence did not support it. The Hearing Examiner's finding, affirmed by the respondent, relied on an unsworn statement regarding a previous violation, which lacked proper evidentiary support. Considering the petitioner's cooperation and prompt payment of the underpayment, the court concluded that the record did not sufficiently establish willfulness. Consequently, the court annulled the determination of willfulness and vacated the imposed fine.

labour lawwillful violationwage paymentapprentice wagesadministrative reviewevidentiary supportunsworn statementprompt paymentannulmentvacatur
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 46 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