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

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. 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. 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

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. 07-08-0305-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2009

Carrie Welch v. Nightingale Nurses, LLC

Carrie Welch, an EEG technician, sued Nightingale Nurses, LLC, her employer, for retaliatory discharge after she filed a worker's compensation claim for an on-the-job injury. Welch's employment contract with Nightingale Nurses, a Florida company, included a forum selection clause requiring litigation in Palm Beach County, Florida. The trial court granted Nightingale's motion to dismiss based on this clause, prompting Welch's appeal. Welch argued the clause was unenforceable due to public interest favoring a Texas forum and because it would be unreasonable and unjust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding Welch failed to demonstrate any exceptions to the enforceability of the forum selection clause.

Forum Selection ClauseRetaliatory DischargeWorker's Compensation ClaimEmployment ContractTexas Labor CodeMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionContract EnforcementFlorida Venue
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Rylander v. Bandag Licensing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General from a district court judgment that awarded Bandag Licensing Corporation (BLC) recovery of franchise taxes paid under protest for the years 1992-96, along with attorney's fees. BLC, an Iowa corporation, held a certificate of authority to do business in Texas but had no physical presence or conducted intrastate business in the state, operating solely through interstate commerce. The Comptroller's assessment of franchise taxes, based solely on BLC's certificate of authority, was challenged as a violation of the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Texas Tax Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that BLC's mere possession of a certificate of authority did not establish a "substantial nexus" with Texas required by the Commerce Clause, nor did it satisfy the minimum contacts for the Due Process Clause. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to BLC, ruling that the amended Tax Code § 112.108, which prohibits such fees in declaratory judgment actions against the state, was unconstitutional as an unreasonable financial barrier to court access.

Franchise TaxCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseSubstantial NexusPhysical PresenceDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesGovernmental ImmunityTaxation LawConstitutional Law
References
34
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. ADJ7672393
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

MAURICE WILLIAMS vs. JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS, USF&G, ACE INSURANCE

This case concerns Maurice Williams, a former professional football player for the Jacksonville Jaguars, who sought workers' compensation benefits in California for a cumulative injury sustained between 2001 and 2009. While a portion of his employment exposed him to California, his contracts from 2007-2011 contained a mandatory forum selection clause requiring all injury claims to be resolved in Florida under Florida law. The Board affirmed the trial judge's decision to decline jurisdiction, finding the forum selection clause to be reasonable and binding for the latter portion of the cumulative injury period. Enforcement of the clause was not deemed unreasonable or unjust, and the applicant failed to demonstrate why California jurisdiction should be exercised despite the contractual agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJacksonville JaguarsUSF&GACE INSURANCEOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryorthopedic body partscumulative injurysubject matter jurisdictionforum selection clause
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05367 [174 AD3d 1017]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of City of Plattsburgh (Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Assn.)

The City of Plattsburgh, the appellant, appealed an order from the Supreme Court that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration with the Plattsburgh Permanent Firemen's Association. The dispute originated from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) which stipulated a minimum staffing level of 36 firefighters and prohibited layoffs. When a firefighter retired, reducing the staff to 35, the City refused to fill the vacancy, citing financial reasons, leading the Firemen's Association to demand arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's application to stay arbitration and granted the Association's motion to compel. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the disputed CBA provision was a job security clause. The court found that this clause did not explicitly demonstrate the City's intent to waive its right to reduce staffing for budgetary or economic reasons, thus violating public policy and rendering the dispute non-arbitrable. A concurring opinion further noted that the clause also violated public policy due to its unreasonable duration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJob Security ClausePublic PolicyStaffing LevelsFirefighters UnionBudgetary ConstraintsAppellate DivisionCPLR Article 75Stay Arbitration
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00986
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Amazing Home Care Servs., LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co. Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a dispute between healthcare entities (plaintiffs) and insurance entities (Applied defendants) over a workers' compensation insurance policy, the Reissuance Participation Agreement (RPA). Plaintiffs alleged a fraudulent scheme where the RPA was not properly approved by the New York State Department of Financial Services. The RPA contained a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Nebraska. The Supreme Court denied the Applied defendants' motion to dismiss, but the Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the second amended complaint without prejudice to re-filing in Nebraska. The Appellate Division enforced the forum selection clause, finding plaintiffs failed to demonstrate it was unreasonable, unjust, or fraudulently procured, and deemed AUCRA a necessary and indispensable party.

Forum Selection ClauseWorkers' Compensation InsuranceFraudulent SchemeAppellate ReviewJurisdictionNecessary PartyIndispensable PartyChoice of Forum ActNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,641 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