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
Dec 21, 2006

Command Cinema Corp. v. VCA Labs, Inc.

Command Cinema (Plaintiff) sued VCA Labs (Defendant) for breach of express contract, conversion, and breach of implied contract regarding the loss of master tapes for two adult films, 'The Last X-Rated Movie' (LXRM) and 'The Firestorm Trilogy' (FT). VCA moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on several claims, and in limine to exclude certain damages. Command cross-moved for summary judgment on conversion. The court denied VCA's summary judgment motion on the FT breach of contract claim but granted Command's summary judgment on both FT and LXRM breach of contract claims. The court granted VCA's summary judgment motions on conversion and implied breach of contract, consequently denying Command's cross-motions on these claims. Regarding damages, the court granted VCA's motion in limine to exclude lost profits for the FT contract but denied it for the LXRM contract, allowing Command to present evidence for lost asset value for LXRM. Punitive damages were also precluded.

Breach of ContractConversionImplied ContractSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineLost ProfitsPunitive DamagesMaster TapesBailmentContract Interpretation
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horkan v. Command Security Corp.

Defendants sought to dismiss plaintiffs' third amended complaint, arguing that defects from a prior dismissed order were not cured. The court reviewed counts one through six, concerning overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and found that the pleading deficiencies were remedied, particularly regarding the alleged joint employment relationship between plaintiffs, Command Security Corporation, and British Airways, PLC. The court determined that the question of whether the undercover surveillance work performed was exempt under the airline exemption was a mixed question of fact and law, not suitable for dismissal. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss counts one through six was denied. However, counts seven through nine, alleging breach of contract, were dismissed due to unresolved ambiguities.

FLSAJoint EmploymentAirline ExemptionOvertime WagesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissEconomic DependenceControlSupervisionPay Rates
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summers v. Command System, Inc.

This case addresses the employer's and its workers' compensation insurer's liability for attorney's fees and costs in a third-party tortfeasor recovery. Applicant Billy Roger Summers, injured while working for MTD Products, Inc., received workers' compensation benefits from Fireman's Fund and subsequently won a $175,000 judgment against Command Systems, Inc. The trial court denied Summers' attorney, James R. Omer, a fee from the portion of the recovery claimed by MTD and Fireman's Fund through subrogation. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employee's attorney's fee should be charged against the entire recovery, including the employer's subrogation claim, especially since the employer's counsel did not actively participate in the tort action. The court also overruled prior inconsistent decisions and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSubrogation LienThird-Party TortfeasorContingent Fee AgreementStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurance CarrierTrial Court ReversalRemand
References
4
Case No. 2014-06-0053
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Bates, Pamela v. Command Center, Inc.

Pamela Bates, an employee, alleged injuries from an assault by an intoxicated co-worker at Command Center, Inc. The employer denied benefits, asserting the assault was not work-related. The trial court, following an expedited hearing, denied Bates's request for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding the assault was private and lacked a work connection. Bates appealed this interlocutory order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the appeal as untimely, noting the notice of appeal was filed on March 16, 2015, beyond the statutory deadline of March 10, 2015, for the order issued on February 27, 2015. The Board emphasized that timely filing of an appeal notice is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement in civil and workers' compensation cases. The case is remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

Assault at WorkUntimely AppealInterlocutory OrderJurisdictional DefectPro Se LitigantExpedited HearingDenial of Medical BenefitsDenial of Temporary Disability BenefitsStatutory DeadlineRemand
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green v. Jacob & Co. Watches, Inc.

William E. Green, an African-American, brought an action against Jacob & Company Watches, Inc., Jacob Arabo, and MG Security Services LLC, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C § 1981. Green, formerly Director of Security for Jacob & Co., claimed he was terminated after objecting to racially offensive comments and discriminatory practices, including referring to African-American employees as "monkeys." Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, and Jacob & Co. also challenged the sufficiency of service of process. The Court partially granted and partially denied the motions to dismiss, allowing discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims to proceed under NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and § 1981, but dismissed Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally, Green's cross-motion for an extension of time to serve process was granted.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRL42 U.S.C. § 1981Motion to DismissService of Process
References
29
Case No. ADJ8004482
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

SETH PATRICK LANTZ (PATRICK LANTZ), Deceased; SHANNON M. LANTZ, Individually And As Guardian Ad Litem For ZANE A. LANTZ; KODY R. LANTZ; HALEY M. FITZJERRELL, And TYLER P. LANTZ, Minors vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if Lieutenant Seth Patrick Lantz's fatal car accident during his commute arose from his employment. The WCAB found the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment, reversing the prior decision. The Board determined the "going and coming rule" applied, as Lieutenant Lantz's extended shift and acting as watch commander did not constitute a special mission exception. Therefore, the death benefit claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionCommuteIndustrial InjuryCorrectional OfficerWatch CommanderReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
0
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hormigas v. Village East Towers, Inc.

Sweeny, J.P., concurs with granting summary judgment to Village East and denying it to Command Security, but clarifies the grounds against Command Security should be narrower. The memorandum argues Mr. Hernandez was off-duty, in civilian clothes, and engaging in personal errands when he took Mr. Sanchez's car, thus not acting within the scope of his employment, which negates respondeat superior liability and negligent hiring/supervision claims against Command Security. The only basis for trial against Command Security should be its direct negligence in allowing access to car keys in an unmanned security booth, which allegedly led to the ensuing accident.

Summary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionDirect NegligenceScope of EmploymentCar TheftSecurity BoothPersonal ErrandUnauthorized Use
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 1980

In re the Claim of Lewis

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Industrial Commissioner's determination that the claimant was ineligible for trade readjustment assistance under the Trade Act of 1974. The claimant was employed in the purchasing department of Bulova Watch Company, Inc., Jackson Heights, New York. Eligibility for assistance required employment in the 'adversely affected employment' of the Watch Manufacturing Division (Division 5), as per the certification. Although the claimant purchased materials for Division 5, he worked in Division 1, an administrative division. The Board concluded that the certification applied solely to workers directly involved in watch manufacturing. The court upheld the Board's decision, finding its interpretation of the statutory language rational and reasonable.

Trade Readjustment AssistanceUnemployment InsuranceTrade Act of 1974Adversely Affected EmploymentEligibilityIndustrial CommissionerBulova Watch CompanyAdministrative DivisionWatch Manufacturing DivisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2008

RAYMOND WEIL, SA v. Theron

Plaintiff Raymond Weil, S.A. sued Charlize Theron and Denver & Delilah Films, Inc. for alleged breaches of an endorsement contract and for fraud related to Theron's promotion of luxury watches. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment. It dismissed the fraud claim in its entirety. For the breach of contract claims, the court found the Montblanc incident curable and thus not actionable, but granted partial summary judgment to Raymond Weil regarding the Dior watch incident, finding Theron liable for breach. Other alleged breaches involving Chopard, Cartier, and Breil Milano were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial to determine damages for the Dior watch breach, and motions related to expert testimony were conditionally denied, awaiting revised reports.

Breach of ContractFraudulent InducementSummary Judgment MotionCelebrity Endorsement AgreementExclusivity Clause DisputeMaterial BreachCure PeriodDamages AssessmentExpert Witness TestimonyCorporate Agency
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 57 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