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. 14-18-00800-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2021

Ana Lisa Mines, Personal Representative of the Estate of Jorge Luis Mines, and Old American Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Kenon D. Murphy

This case involves an appeal from jury verdicts in favor of Kenon D. Murphy, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision caused by Jorge Luis Mines. Appellants, Ana Lisa Mines, personal representative of Mines' estate, and Old American Mutual Fire Insurance Company, raised several issues, including the non-enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement, errors in jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence for lost wages and future medical expenses. The appellate court affirmed most aspects of the trial court's judgment but determined that the evidence supporting the award for future medical expenses was factually insufficient. Consequently, the court suggested a remittitur of $7,000, which would reduce the total damages awarded to $505,859.00. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to allow a trial amendment regarding Ana Lisa Mines's capacity as a defendant.

Motor Vehicle CollisionPersonal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceSettlement AgreementJury VerdictExpert Witness TestimonyMedical ExpensesLost Earning CapacityAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LTV Steel Co. v. Connors (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal of two orders issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The first order granted partial summary judgment to the Mining Companies and LTV Steel Corporation, holding they were not legally obligated to pay retiree health benefits. The second order granted the United Mine Workers of America's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that the United Mine Workers of America 1974 Benefit Plan and Trust was liable to pay these benefits. The Plan & Trust appealed both orders to the District Court, arguing violations of the Retiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection Act, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denial of due process, and misinterpretation of its obligations under the Wage Agreement's 'no longer in business' clause. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's orders, finding the Act inapplicable, subject matter jurisdiction proper as a core proceeding, sufficient opportunity to litigate, and the Plan & Trust liable due to contractual interpretation and collateral estoppel from prior litigations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationRetiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementUMWAEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionCore ProceedingCollateral Estoppel
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Ex Rel. United Mine Workers of America v. Askew

This case concerns a petition for mandamus filed by the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 19, seeking to compel the board of review and the commissioner of labor to pay unemployment compensation benefits. The dispute arose after a labor disagreement in March 1939, leading to a four-week unemployment period for mine workers. The commissioner initially approved benefits, but the board of review reversed this decision. A chancery court then reversed the board, ordering benefits. However, the board declined to make an order for immediate payment pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The current mandamus petition, seeking to enforce immediate payment, was dismissed by the chancery court at Nashville, and this dismissal was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court, which found no statutory authority for present payment during an ongoing appeal.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeMandamusJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureStay of ExecutionChancery CourtSupreme CourtTennessee Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ASARCO LLC v. Americas Mining Corp.

Plaintiffs ASARCO LLC and Southern Peru Holdings LLC, as debtors in possession, sued Defendant Americas Mining Corporation (AMC) to recover stock and damages. The core dispute involves a 2003 transfer of 54.18% of Southern Peru Copper Company (SPCC) stock from ASARCO's subsidiary to AMC, which plaintiffs allege was a fraudulent transfer. The court found ASARCO had standing through reverse-veil piercing. While constructive fraudulent transfer failed as ASARCO received reasonably equivalent value for the stock, the court found AMC liable for actual fraudulent transfer due to intent to hinder ASARCO's creditors. Additionally, the court found ASARCO's directors breached their fiduciary duties due to ASARCO's insolvency, and AMC aided and abetted this breach and conspired with the directors to effectuate the transfer. Punitive damages were denied.

Fraudulent TransferBreach of Fiduciary DutyCorporate ConspiracyAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate InsolvencyAsset SaleMineral Mining IndustryDebt RestructuringStock ValuationBankruptcy Avoidance Powers
References
219
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Block Coal & Coke Co. v. United Mine Workers

This dissenting opinion addresses a claim for unemployment compensation benefits by thousands of coal miners (United Mine Workers of America, District No. 19) against their employers, the Block Coal and Coke Company and other coal operators, for the period of April 1 to May 8, 1939. The core legal question is whether their unemployment stemmed from a 'labor dispute' under Tennessee law, which would disqualify them from benefits. The Commissioner of Labor initially granted benefits, reversed by the Board of Review, then reinstated by the Chancery Court. The coal operators appealed. Justice DeHaven dissents, arguing that the unemployment was due to the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement and ongoing negotiations, not an active labor dispute. He contends that deeming negotiations a dispute would undermine collective bargaining and that the statute requires a localized labor activity like a strike or lockout at the workplace. He concludes that the chancellor's decision to allow benefits should have been affirmed, implying the majority denied the benefits.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeCollective BargainingContract ExpirationStatutory InterpretationTennessee Unemployment Compensation LawWorkers' RightsEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate CourtDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKamey v. Pee Wee Mining Co.

McKamey was awarded total and permanent disability benefits for coal workers' pneumoconiosis contracted while working for Pee Wee Mining Company, a judgment affirmed by the appellate court. The trial court found McKamey's 100% disability arose from his employment with Pee Wee Mining Company, independent of any prior injuries. The Second Injury Fund was absolved of liability because the employer had no prior knowledge of McKamey's previous disabilities, and Pee Wee Mining Company was solely responsible for the total disability. Pee Wee Mining Company appealed, contesting the trial judge's refusal to grant credit for McKamey's previous 60% disability award under § 50-1007 T. C.A. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, deeming the credit provision of the statute vague, potentially unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the liberal construction of workmen’s compensation law, thereby affirming the initial judgment.

Workers' CompensationLung DiseaseCoal Workers' PneumoconiosisTotal DisabilityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilitySecond Injury FundStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Behnken v. Luminant Mining Co.

Plaintiffs, non-exempt hourly employees of Luminant Mining Co., LLC, brought a collective action under the FLSA for unpaid overtime. They allege Luminant required them to work during unpaid meal breaks at the Three Oaks Mine near Rockdale, Texas, from March 2012 to March 2013. The court granted conditional certification for the class of non-management mining employees (excluding electricians and mechanics) and approved court-facilitated notice, with modifications to the proposed notice form. The court also granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for limited discovery.

FLSAOvertime PayConditional CertificationCollective ActionMeal BreaksUnpaid WagesLabor LawEmployment LawWage and HourTexas
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rittenberry v. Lewis

This case addresses motions to dismiss or quash service of process brought by the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, defendants in multiple suits. The plaintiffs, including Rittenberry, Sisk, Mayes, Hackney, and Ramsey, sought pension benefits or refunds. Key legal questions involved the validity of substituted service on non-resident trusts under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 20-223, whether the Fund's activities constituted 'doing business' in Tennessee, and the court's jurisdiction over a trust of movables. The Court determined that the 1963 amendment to Section 20-223, T.C.A., made non-resident trusts doing business in Tennessee subject to service, overruling previous jurisdictional limitations. It found the Fund was indeed doing business in Tennessee and that service adhered to constitutional due process and full faith and credit. Consequently, the defendants' motions were denied, with the Ramsey plaintiff granted leave to amend their complaint to properly name the trustees.

Workers' CompensationTrust FundService of ProcessNon-resident TrustDoing BusinessJurisdictionConflict of LawsDue ProcessFull Faith and CreditStatutory Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 1996

Wilson v. Gerstenzang, Weiner & Gerstenzang

This legal malpractice action concerned plaintiffs' claim that defendant Michael E. Mine negligently failed to timely commence an intentional tort action against Christopher Akers, who allegedly kicked plaintiff Leonard W. Wilson, Jr. Akers was a 50% shareholder of cav-ark Builders, Wilson's employer. Wilson disregarded Mine's advice and continued to accept workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Wilson's acceptance of workers' compensation benefits precluded him from pursuing a separate intentional tort claim against his employer, Akers. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the legal malpractice action lacked merit because the underlying action would not have succeeded.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsIntentional TortStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityElection of RemediesAppellate ReviewAttorney NegligenceCivil Damages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 86 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