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

Overstreet v. El Paso Disposal, L.P.

The case concerns Petitioner Cómele A. Overstreet's "Petition for Temporary Injunction Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act" against Respondent El Paso Disposal, L.P. The Court first denied Respondent's motion to dismiss, affirming the Board's lawful delegation of Section 10(j) authority to the General Counsel and its continuing validity despite Board vacancies. Subsequently, the Court granted the temporary injunction, finding reasonable cause that El Paso Disposal engaged in unfair labor practices, including bad faith bargaining, unilateral policy changes, and wrongful non-reinstatement of striking workers. The injunction orders the reinstatement of workers, recognition and bargaining with the Union, and rescission of unilateral changes to restore the lawful status quo and enable the National Labor Relations Board to provide effective relief.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary InjunctionSection 10(j)Collective BargainingUnion RecognitionStrike ReinstatementQuorum RequirementsDelegation of Authority
References
61
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

In re Blose

A claimant was denied unemployment benefits after being terminated for refusing to change her attire (a 'hot pants outfit' or jumpsuit) which her employer deemed inappropriate. The Appeal Board reversed a referee's decision, upholding the employer's prerogative to enforce a dress code. The dissenting judge argued that there was no evidence to support the employer's claims of impropriety, distraction, or a specific dress code rule. Citing precedent, the dissent contended that the board's determination lacked substantial evidence to prove the claimant voluntarily provoked her discharge and would have reinstated the referee's finding that the employer's demand for a change in attire constituted a unilateral change in employment conditions, justifying the claimant's refusal.

dress codeemployment terminationvoluntary leavinggood causepersonnel policyworkplace attireAppeal Boardreferee decisionsubstantial evidencediscrimination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2005

Collins v. Glenwood Management Corp.

Plaintiff Lance Collins, injured at a Manhattan construction site, initiated an action in Bronx County based on claimed residency. Defendants moved to change venue to Orange County, presenting evidence like DMV records and an affidavit from a Bronx building owner suggesting Collins resided in Orange County. Plaintiffs opposed, offering tax returns and affidavits asserting Bronx residency, and arguing the defendants' motion was untimely. The IAS court initially denied the venue change, deeming it untimely. However, the appellate court reversed, finding the defendants' motion timely given the conflicting evidence on Collins' residency, and remanded the case for a hearing to resolve these factual disputes.

VenueChange of VenueResidency DisputeAppellate DivisionBronx CountyOrange CountyCivil ProcedureCPLRCredibilityFactual Issues
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1992

Kudelski v. 450 Lexington Venture

Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured during the course of his employment at a construction project. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion and third-party cross-motions to change venue from Bronx County to Queens County. Additionally, summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint against Big Apple Wrecking Corp. (Big Apple) and S&H Bricksales Corporation (S&H) on the grounds that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy against them. This was based on findings that S&H functioned as either an alter ego or a joint venturer of Big Apple, sharing employees, equipment, supervisors, offices, officers, directors, and stockholders. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both the change of venue and the dismissal of the complaint, upholding the application of the Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Exclusive RemedyVenue TransferSummary Judgment DismissalCorporate Alter EgoJoint EmploymentConstruction Site InjuryAppellate AffirmationLabor Law ExclusivityThird-Party LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ8750816
Regular
Jul 31, 2014

KAMIKA BEASLEY vs. SECURITAS, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing the prior denial of a change of venue. The applicant demonstrated good cause by residing in Vallejo, her injury occurring in Sacramento, and no longer having an attorney in the original Anaheim venue. Therefore, the case venue was changed to the Oakland district office, and the trial was continued.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePetition to Change VenuePetition for Change of VenueGood CauseMandatory Settlement ConferenceApplication for Adjudication of ClaimIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,387 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