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

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Resnik v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a petitioner's review of a determination made by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original determination, dated January 30, 1992, concluded that Pall Biomedical Products Corp. had not unlawfully discriminated against the petitioner based on her pregnancy. The current proceeding confirmed this determination and dismissed the case on the merits. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's finding, specifically noting the petitioner's misrepresentation of hours, refusal to assist co-workers, and irregular work hours.

human rightsemployment discriminationpregnancy discriminationadministrative reviewsubstantial evidenceemployee misconductirregular work hoursNew York State Division of Human Rights
References
3
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04473 [186 AD3d 594]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2020

Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of class certification for a putative class action brought by former home health care aides against Future Health Care Services, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law article 19, specifically concerning minimum wage payments for 24-hour shifts. The court, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, considered the Department of Labor's interpretation of Minimum Wage Order Number 11, which permits exclusion of up to 11 hours for sleep and meal breaks in 24-hour shifts. Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality, as they did not allege a lack of prescribed breaks or provide sufficient evidentiary basis for systemwide wage violations, thus failing to meet the requirements of CPLR article 9. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to deny class certification was upheld.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum Wage24-hour ShiftsHome Health Care AidesClass CertificationWage OrderAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationNew York Department of Labor
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Periana v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a petitioner's review of an order from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original order, dated October 13, 1989, concluded that Becton Dickinson Immunodiagnostics did not discriminate against the petitioner based on sex and national origin. The court confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence to support the employer's actions. Evidence indicated the petitioner failed to follow company procedures, exhibited poor interpersonal skills, and maintained irregular hours. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkplace ConductInterpersonal SkillsIrregular Hours
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. 03-21-00579-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2022

Alvy Childress v. Travelers Indemnity Company, W&W-AFCO Steel LLC, and Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation

Alvy Childress appealed a trial court's orders concerning a worker's compensation claim, specifically challenging a venue transfer and the dismissal of claims against the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of the venue transfer from Travis County to Tom Green County, citing a lack of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. Regarding the plea to the jurisdiction by the Division, the court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss Childress's claims. It held that the Texas Labor Code does not provide a claimant with the right to sue the Division in such judicial review cases, thereby upholding the Division's sovereign immunity. Consequently, the Division was deemed not a proper party to the appellant's suit for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewVenue TransferSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate JurisdictionLabor CodeTexas Court of AppealsAdministrative LawPro Se
References
29
Case No. M1999-00676-SC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2001

Dorothy Wilkins v. The Kellog Company

Dorothy Wilkins, an employee of The Kellogg Company, sustained a right shoulder injury and was placed on light duty, which reduced her work hours but not her hourly wage. The trial court awarded her temporary partial disability benefits based on her 'average weekly wage.' Kellogg appealed, arguing that the relevant statute for temporary partial disability should calculate benefits based on the difference between the hourly wage at the time of injury and the hourly wage earned while partially disabled. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory language for temporary partial disability benefits does not incorporate the 'average weekly wage' concept. Consequently, Wilkins was found not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits because her hourly wage remained unchanged.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Partial DisabilityWage CalculationStatutory InterpretationAverage Weekly WageLight Duty ProgramTennessee Supreme CourtAppealHourly WageBenefit Calculation
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 7,596 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