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

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. 08-05-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

in Re: Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company

In this original proceeding in mandamus, Relator Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company sought to overturn a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The underlying dispute involved Jose Gomez, a former employee, who sued Phelps Dodge for age discrimination and retaliatory discharge after he was laid off following a workers' compensation claim. Phelps Dodge argued Gomez was bound by an arbitration policy in an employee handbook. The Court of Appeals referenced a factually similar prior case, In re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co., and concluded that the company's Problem Solving Procedure did not constitute an arbitration agreement. Therefore, the appellate court denied mandamus relief, upholding the trial court's decision.

MandamusArbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbooksAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewDenial of Relief
References
1
Case No. 08-05-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, a Division of Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc. v. Jose Gomez

This interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed by Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company against its former employee, Jose Gomez. Gomez, a Spanish speaker, alleged he was unaware of the company's arbitration policy in the employee handbook and claimed his termination was retaliatory for filing a workers' compensation claim and discriminatory due to his age, violating Texas Labor Code Chapter 21. The Court of Appeals, citing its previous decision in Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co. v. Chavelle, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and mandamus was the appropriate method of recourse.

Age DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimArbitration PolicyInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployee HandbookTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration Act
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Widera v. Ettco Wire & Cable Corp.

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning the dismissal of a common-law negligence claim. The case involves Catherine Widera, an infant plaintiff, who alleges severe prenatal injuries from lead exposure. These injuries are attributed to lead dust brought home by her father, Matthew Widera, from his employment at Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., which subsequently exposed her pregnant mother. The dissenting judge argues for the reinstatement of the negligence cause of action, asserting that the defendant employer owed a foreseeable duty of care to the employee's unborn child. The opinion critiques the 'lack of duty' dismissal, advocating for an expansion of liability in light of evolving legal precedents, policy considerations, and scientific evidence regarding 'fouling the nest' syndrome.

Prenatal InjuryLead PoisoningEmployer NegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityToxinsWorkplace SafetyCommon LawJudicial ActivismDissenting Opinion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graves v. Anchor Wire Corp. of Tennessee

Margie Graves appealed a trial court's order granting summary judgment to Anchor Wire Corporation of Tennessee, her former employer. Graves was terminated in 1982 for taking confidential company production reports. She argued that an employee handbook created an implied contract of employment, thereby altering her "at-will" status. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, reiterating that under Tennessee law, an employment contract for an indefinite term remains an at-will contract, allowing termination without cause. The court also noted that Graves admitted her actions warranted discipline, and the handbook did not dispute the company's right to discharge her for such misconduct.

Employee at willWrongful terminationImplied contractEmployee handbookSummary judgmentTennessee lawMisconductProduction reportsEmployment lawAppellate review
References
3
Case No. 225 S.W.3d 601
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Co.

Alfredo Chavelle, a former mechanic at Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Company, filed a worker's compensation claim following a job-related injury. Subsequently, he was laid off and believed his termination was due to age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. Chavelle initiated a lawsuit against Phelps Dodge, prompting the company to file a motion to compel arbitration based on its employee handbook's Problem Solving Procedure (PSP). The trial court denied this motion, leading Phelps Dodge to seek a writ of mandamus. The appellate court concluded that the PSP did not constitute a valid arbitration agreement, ruling it was merely an internal grievance procedure that lacked the ability for parties to select independent arbitrators, as the arbitrators were exclusively company employees. Consequently, the appellate court denied the mandamus relief, affirming the trial court's decision.

Mandamus ReliefArbitration AgreementEmployment DisputeRetaliatory DischargeAge DiscriminationEmployee HandbookProblem Solving ProcedureInternal GrievanceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
21
Case No. 06-17-00112-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Orbison v. Ma-Tex Rope Co.

Samuel D. Orbison, a former employee of Ma-Tex Rope Company, Inc., resigned and joined competitor American Pipe Inspections, Inc. (API), subsequently soliciting Ma-Tex's customers using confidential information. Ma-Tex sued Orbison and API, obtaining a permanent injunction and an award for actual damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence for damages related to lost profits and goodwill, reversing that portion of the award. However, the court affirmed the permanent injunction against Orbison and API, as well as the award of attorney fees due to willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duties. The final judgment allowed Ma-Tex to recover $4,173.83 in actual damages for unjust enrichment, fee forfeiture, and profit disgorgement.

Non-compete clauseNon-disclosure agreementNon-solicitationEmployment disputeTrade secret misappropriationFiduciary duty breachPermanent injunction enforcementDamages calculationLost profitsGoodwill valuation
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2004

Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs Nexans Wires S.A. and Lacroix & Kress GmbH sued defendants Sark-USA, Inc. and Sarkuysan Elektrolitik Bakir Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.S., alleging unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The core of the federal claim centered on allegations that defendants induced former employees of a customer, AEB, to steal plaintiffs' proprietary information from AEB's computer systems. The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss the CFAA claims into a motion for summary judgment to assess if plaintiffs met the CFAA's jurisdictional "loss" threshold of $5,000. It determined that the claimed losses, consisting of executive travel expenses and lost revenue unrelated to computer service interruption, did not qualify as "loss" under the CFAA's definition. Consequently, the federal CFAA claims were dismissed, but the court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Computer Fraud and Abuse ActCFAASummary JudgmentTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionJurisdictionStandingFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureData TheftProprietary Information
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douds v. Local 24368, United Wire & Metal Workers Union

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a petition for an injunction against Local 24368, United Wire and Metal Workers Union, A.F.L., alleging unfair labor practices. This action followed a dispute where Local 365, UAW-CIO, initially certified as the bargaining agent for Abko Products, Inc. employees, attempted to waive its authority in favor of Local 24368 through an agreement, subsequently ratified by the employees. Abko Products, Inc. refused to bargain with Local 24368, leading to a strike and picketing. The court determined the agreement between the unions was void as a certified bargaining agent cannot delegate its authority and employee ratification via signed papers does not validate such an assignment. Ultimately, the court denied the injunction, finding it neither just nor proper, suggesting the issue was best suited for administrative resolution by the NLRB.

Labor LawInjunction DenialUnfair Labor PracticesCollective BargainingUnion CertificationDelegation of Bargaining AuthorityEmployee RatificationStrike ActionPicketingNational Labor Relations Act
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rideaux v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Company

The libelant, Mrs. Louise Rideaux, sued Lykes Bros. Steamship Company for the wrongful death of her husband, a longshoreman killed by falling steel beams due to allegedly unseaworthy slings. Lykes admitted liability to Mrs. Rideaux. Subsequently, Lykes impleaded Paulsen-Webber Cordage Corp., the supplier of the wire rope used for the slings, seeking indemnity, alleging negligence and breach of contractual duties. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company intervened for subrogation for worker's compensation payments. The court denied the claim for conscious pain and suffering but awarded Mrs. Rideaux $54,350.00 in damages from Lykes. The court also denied Lykes's claim for indemnity against Paulsen-Webber, finding no defect in Paulsen-Webber's wire rope and concluding that Lykes's improper fabrication of the slings was the cause of the accident.

Admiralty LawWrongful DeathLongshoremanUnseaworthinessIndemnity ClaimProduct LiabilityWire RopeSling FailurePecuniary DamagesCausation
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 156 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