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
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drake Bakeries Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International

Plaintiff Drake Bakeries, Incorporated, initiated a lawsuit to recover damages for an alleged breach of a "no-strike provision" within a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to stay the trial, seeking to compel arbitration as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and permitted by the United States Arbitration Act. The plaintiff opposed this motion, arguing that the arbitration provision was permissive, that the union waived its arbitration rights by striking, and that the defendants had waived their rights by failing to initiate arbitration. The Court, however, found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments, concluding that the arbitration provisions were mandatory, a breach of contract does not automatically waive arbitration rights, and the defendants did not waive their rights since the plaintiff, as the aggrieved party, had not attempted to initiate arbitration. Consequently, the Court enforced the arbitration agreement and granted the defendant's motion to stay further proceedings in the suit.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsLabor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActContract EnforcementWaiverGrievance ProcedureMandatory Arbitration
References
4
Case No. ADJ3887642 (MON 0244638) ADJ2350388 (MON 0241177)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

MARION BARNES vs. JOHN RIORDAN PLUMBING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that the defendant waived its claim for credit of overpaid temporary disability indemnity. This waiver occurred because the defendant failed to challenge a previous WCJ order from July 2009 that determined the issue had already been waived. The Board affirmed that the July 2009 order was a final order because it determined a substantive right of the parties. Therefore, the defendant could not relitigate this waived issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Associationliquidationcovered claimscredit for overpaymenttemporary disability indemnitywaiverfinal ordersubstantive rightreconsideration
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendrix v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

This is a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Walker, disagreeing with the majority's decision to reverse and remand a case based on appellant's points of error one and seven. The dissent argues that the appellant's complaints, particularly regarding alleged violations of a motion in limine, were waived due to a failure to make timely and specific objections at trial. The Chief Justice emphasizes that a motion in limine is not a substitute for an objection. The opinion also points out that the mention of workers' compensation insurance was initiated by the appellant's own witness and that the appellant refused a curative instruction concerning a prior lawsuit, thereby waiving that error. The dissent concludes that the errors were waived and the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial should have been upheld.

Dissenting OpinionMotion in LimineWaiver of ErrorObjectionCurative InstructionWorkers' Compensation InsurancePrior LawsuitAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. 2-05-081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

Eunice Alexander v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Self Insured

Appellant Eunice Alexander appealed a summary judgment ruling that Appellee Lockheed Martin Corporation did not waive its right to contest compensability and that Alexander did not have a compensable claim. Alexander argued that Lockheed Martin waived its right to contest compensability by not doing so within the statutory sixty-day period, as per Texas Labor Code section 409.021(c). The court examined the applicability of *Continental Casualty Company v. Williamson*, distinguishing it from the current case as *Williamson* applied to situations of no injury, whereas here an injury was found but not in the course of employment. The appellate court agreed with Alexander, holding that Lockheed Martin waived its right to contest compensability because the issue was whether the injury was in the course and scope of employment, which is a compensability issue, not the existence of an injury itself. The trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiverCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeCourse and Scope of EmploymentPre-existing ConditionAppeals PanelSelf-InsuredRemand
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Castiglia

In this Surrogate's Court proceeding, the decedent's spouse sought to remove restrictions from her limited letters of administration to access settlement funds from a personal injury claim. The core issue revolved around the calculation of attorney's fees in a settlement where an insurance carrier both paid "fresh money" and waived its workers' compensation lien. The court critically examined the precedent set in *Matter of Purtill*, finding its approach to fee calculation overly broad. This decision clarifies that when an insurance carrier waives its lien, the true settlement value for attorney's fee computation should include the fresh money plus two-thirds of the waived lien, ensuring the attorney's fee for the lien portion is not solely borne by the client, consistent with Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (1). The application was granted, with the attorney's fees and disbursements modified according to this clarified methodology.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSettlement ProceedsLien WaiverSurrogate's CourtLetters of AdministrationEstate LawNew York LawInsurance LawPersonal Injury Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2009

Federal Insurance Co. v. Ruiz

Federal Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that sided with Carol Ruiz in a worker's compensation dispute. Ruiz, a secretary, suffered a workplace injury on January 24, 2005, and was later diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which Federal disputed. The central issue was whether Federal waived its right to contest the compensability of Ruiz's carpal tunnel syndrome by failing to do so within the 60-day period stipulated by Texas Labor Code § 409.021(c). Both a hearing officer and an appeals panel evaluated whether the condition could have been reasonably discovered during that period, with the appeals panel concluding Federal had indeed waived its right. The trial court affirmed the appeals panel's decision, and the appellate court, aligning with precedents like Sanders v. American Protection Insurance Co., also affirmed, ruling that the condition's compensability was waived.

Worker's CompensationWaiver RuleTexas Labor CodeCarpal Tunnel SyndromeExtent of InjuryCompensability DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityRepetitive Trauma
References
9
Case No. E2011-01817-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

State of Tenessee v. Danielle White

The Defendant, Danielle White, appealed her convictions for two counts of aggravated assault. She contended that the trial court erred in failing to appoint counsel, allowing her to represent herself, failing to recuse the judge, unconstitutional grand jury selection, improper jury selection, denying her motion to suppress a rifle, and prosecutorial misconduct. The appellate court found that the Defendant was not entitled to appointed counsel due to her refusal to complete an affidavit of indigency and that she waived her right to counsel by insisting on proceeding pro se. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the judge's refusal to recuse. Issues regarding grand jury and jury selection were either waived or found to be harmless error. The court determined that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry and seizure of the rifle, but its admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutorial misconduct claim was waived. The judgments of the trial court were affirmed.

aggravated assaultself-representationright to counselindigencyjudicial recusalgrand jury selectionjury selection processmotion to suppresswarrantless searchexigent circumstances
References
35
Case No. 04-07-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2009

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Bill Hibdon

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) contested the compensability of an injury claimed by Bill Hibdon. The core issue was whether Pacific had waived its right to contest compensability by allegedly failing to timely send notice of refusal to pay benefits to Hibdon, as required by the version of Texas Labor Code § 409.021(a) in effect at the time. The trial court affirmed an appeals panel decision, concluding Pacific had waived its right due to Hibdon's non-receipt of timely notice. However, citing Sw. Bell Tel. v. Mitchell, the appellate court determined that failure to send or receive notice within the statutory seven-day period does not constitute a waiver of the insurer's right to contest compensability. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Pacific, holding it did not waive its right.

Workers' CompensationWaiverInsurance CarrierNotice of RefusalCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentReversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,239 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