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. ADJ9343159, ADJ1368987 (MON0362038)
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JAMES ISAAC vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition as procedurally improper. United Airlines filed a "Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release" instead of the correct "Petition for Reconsideration." The WCAB will return the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to address United Airlines' original petition. This ruling does not substantively rule on the merits of setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissedGallagher Bassett ServicesUnited AirlinesADJ9343159ADJ1368987
References
0
Case No. AHM 0077308 AHM 0075910
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

CLIFFORD GAMBLE vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, ET AL.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed United Airlines' petition for reconsideration as untimely filed. United Airlines sought to clarify VRMA liability, arguing it shouldn't extend to periods the applicant interrupted rehabilitation services. The WCAB found no bad faith or frivolousness, noting the petition was a reasonable attempt to clarify a potential ambiguity in the original decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnited AirlinesGallagher Bassett ServicesClifford GamblePetition for ReconsiderationDecision After RemittiturVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceVRMAQualified Injured WorkerTimely Filing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. 75-H-1459
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1976

Airline Flight Atten., Etc. v. Tex. Intern., Etc.

This case addresses a labor dispute between airline flight attendants and Texas International Airlines concerning the Airline's unilateral mid-month flight schedule changes. The core legal question revolves around whether these actions constituted a 'major' or 'minor' dispute under the Railway Labor Act, which dictates different resolution procedures. The Flight Attendants sought injunctive relief, arguing for a major dispute that would require the Airline to maintain the status quo and negotiate. However, the District Court found the Airline's justification, based on the existing collective bargaining agreement and managerial prerogative, to be reasonable and made in good faith. Consequently, the court ruled the dispute was 'minor,' falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment for contract interpretation, and thus denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment for the defendant.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeStatus Quo ObligationSystem Board of AdjustmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMid-month Schedule ChangesInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentContract Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. United Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Doreen Del Monaco Doyle sued United Airlines, Inc., alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and breach of an employment agreement. Doyle claimed the airline denied her light duty work to accommodate short-term memory and coordination issues after brain surgery. Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing the Rehabilitation Act claim was time-barred and the breach of contract claim was preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss both claims with prejudice. The Rehabilitation Act claim was found to be time-barred, and equitable tolling was denied due to lack of due diligence. The breach of contract claim was preempted by LMRA § 301 and, even if considered a hybrid LMRA § 301 claim, it was also time-barred, leading to its dismissal.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractLabor Management Relations ActLMRA PreemptionEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsHybrid § 301 ClaimDuty of Fair Representation
References
47
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. ADJ6721897
Regular
May 15, 2012

ERIC BOLDEN vs. UNITED AIRLINES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision in the case of Bolden v. United Airlines. The Board rescinded the WCJ's prior decision and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision. This action is not a final determination of the case's merits. Both parties retain their rights regarding future appeals.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ's ReportGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionFurther ProceedingsDecision After ReconsiderationTrial LevelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric BoldenUnited Airlines
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,168 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