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

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Johnson & Higgins

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Johnson & Higgins (J&H) over a mandatory pre-65 retirement policy that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court previously found J&H liable and issued an injunction. J&H then sought partial summary judgment to dismiss claims for monetary and injunctive relief based on waivers signed by thirteen retired employee-directors, who had received $1,000 in exchange for waiving ADEA rights. The retired directors later repudiated these waivers, citing conflict of interest, economic duress, and undue influence. The EEOC opposed the waivers, arguing inadequate consideration, lack of voluntariness, and that J&H negotiated them without EEOC participation after a finding of liability. The District Court denied J&H's motion for summary judgment, finding material issues of fact regarding the adequacy of consideration and the voluntariness of the waivers. The court also held that waivers entered into after a finding of liability and without EEOC participation are invalid as a matter of law.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEAWaiversSummary JudgmentKnowing and VoluntaryConsiderationOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActOWBPARepudiation of WaiversEEOC Litigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olympia Gunn v. Baptist/St. Anthony's Health Network

Olympia Gunn, an overnight nurse, was injured while working for Baptist St. Anthony’s Health Network (BSA), which operates a voluntary employee injury program instead of worker's compensation. After her injury, Gunn signed a waiver under Texas Labor Code § 406.033, releasing BSA from liability in exchange for program benefits. She subsequently sued BSA for negligence, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, citing the waiver. On appeal, Gunn challenged the waiver's validity based on various statutory requirements and the express negligence doctrine. The appellate court found the waiver compliant and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation WaiverPost-Injury WaiverSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimGross Negligence ClaimTexas Labor CodeConspicuousness DoctrineExpress Negligence DoctrineEmployee Injury ProgramAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. C.S.P.H., Inc.

Kevin W. Wolfe, an employee, sued his employer, C.S.P.H. d/b/a Domino’s Pizza (CSPH), for negligence after an on-the-job injury. CSPH, a nonsubscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, offered an Enhanced Benefits Program where employees waived their right to sue in exchange for enhanced benefits, which Wolfe voluntarily accepted. After receiving benefits, Wolfe sued, but the trial court granted summary judgment for CSPH, finding the waiver valid. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the Texas Labor Code section 406.035, which voids waivers of compensation rights, does not apply to nonsubscribers, and that voluntary pre-injury waivers are not against public policy. The court also dismissed Wolfe's claims of duress and alleged evidentiary errors, thus upholding the enforceability of the waiver.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationWaiver of RightsSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEnhanced Benefits ProgramPublic PolicyDuressEvidentiary Issues
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brito v. Intex Aviation Services, Inc.

Raul Brito, an employee of Intex Aviation Services, Inc. (Intex), sued Intex and Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) for negligence and gross negligence after he was injured slipping on grease while cleaning an aircraft in September 1992. Intex, a nonsubscriber to the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, had established a voluntary occupational insurance plan. Brito enrolled in this plan and signed a waiver relinquishing his rights to legal action against Intex for work-related injuries, subsequently receiving benefits under the plan. Intex moved for summary judgment, arguing the waiver barred Brito's claims. Brito contended the waiver was void under Texas law and that he did not understand its implications. The court granted Intex's motion for summary judgment, finding that Brito had validly waived his rights by signing the agreement and accepting benefits, and that the waiver was enforceable under Texas law, dismissing all claims against Intex.

Workers' CompensationWaiver of RightsOccupational Insurance PlanNonsubscriber EmployerSummary JudgmentTexas LawNegligence ClaimsEmployee BenefitsERISA PreemptionContractual Waiver
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Beecham

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the application of Donna R. Beeeham for a waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee. Ms. Beeeham, a debtor with a reported monthly income of $804 and expenses of $1075, had filed her petition along with the fee waiver application. A hearing was held on November 16, 1994, to assess her entitlement to an In Forma Pauperis waiver, during which she disclosed a pending Workers' Compensation claim and substantial medical debts. The court, presided over by Judge G. Harvey Boswell, ultimately denied the application, citing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1006(b)(3). This rule mandates that the filing fee must be fully paid before an attorney receives payment for bankruptcy-related services, and Ms. Beeeham had paid her attorney a $500 fee, thus indicating an ability to pay the filing fee, even if borrowed. Consequently, she was ordered to pay the $160 filing fee within thirty days or file an installment payment application to prevent case dismissal.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyFiling Fee WaiverIn Forma PauperisBankruptcy ProcedureDebtor's Attorney FeesAbility to PayInstallment PaymentsCase Dismissal AvoidanceWestern District of TennesseeJudicial Conference Pilot Program
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheridan v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerard J. Sheridan alleged age discrimination by McGraw-Hill Publishing following his employment termination, violating federal, state, and city laws. He also challenged the validity of a signed waiver of claims, contending it was not knowing and voluntary due to fraudulent inducement regarding the reasons for his discharge. The court meticulously reviewed the waiver's compliance with the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) and assessed the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation. Ultimately, the court determined that the waiver met all statutory requirements and that the plaintiff, who had legal counsel, voluntarily executed it, thus barring his discrimination claims. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEA WaiverOWBPA ComplianceSummary Judgment GrantFraudulent Inducement DefenseEmployment TerminationCorporate ReorganizationNew York Discrimination LawFederal Court Decision
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,143 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