Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 28, 2001

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case concerns an appeal regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA), to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations for pesticide applicators. Appellants Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P., challenged TOSHA's jurisdiction, asserting preemption by federal laws like FIFRA and FOSH. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed TOSHA's authority, noting that state agriculture regulations focus on pesticide labeling and applicator licensing, not employee workplace safety. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld this decision, concluding that Congress did not intend to fully preempt state regulation of pesticide use in the workplace, thus affirming TOSHA's jurisdiction and obligation to ensure worker health and safety from pesticide-related risks.

Pesticide RegulationOccupational Safety and HealthFederal PreemptionState JurisdictionPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)TOSHA (Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act)FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)Workplace Safety InspectionsAdministrative LawJudicial Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves an appeal by Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P. challenging the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA) to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations concerning pesticide applicators. The appellants argued that federal laws, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (FOSH), preempted TOSHA's authority. Both the Chancery Court of Davidson County and this appellate court affirmed the decision that TOSHA has jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to fully occupy the field of pesticide regulation, particularly regarding their use in the workplace, and that states are permitted to regulate pesticide use. Therefore, TOSHA retains its obligation and authority to protect the health and safety of workers from risks associated with pesticide use in the workplace.

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This appeal addresses whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's Extra-Hazardous Employer Program is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The Ben Robinson Company was designated extra-hazardous following a fatal workplace accident, leading to mandated safety inspections and an accident prevention plan. The Commission's arguments for dismissing the case, including mootness and the exclusivity of the Administrative Procedure Act, were rejected. The court concluded that the Program, as currently administered, is preempted by the OSH Act where it regulates workplace safety issues already covered by federal standards. The decision reverses the trial court's summary judgment and remands the case for a determination of costs and attorney's fees.

Occupational Safety and Health ActOSH Act PreemptionExtra-Hazardous Employer ProgramTexas Workers’ Compensation CommissionWorkplace SafetyState RegulationFederal PreemptionMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees

References

Case No. 657577/19

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 11, 2025

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs Craig McMillian, Eian McMillian, and Victor Ballast. The plaintiffs, identified as non-union construction "flaggers," asserted that they were unlawfully paid below the prevailing wage for public works projects in New York City, having been misclassified as "crossing guards" or "traffic control." The lawsuit targeted Out-Look Safety LLC, Restani Construction Corp., Triumph Construction Corp., Elecnor Hawkeye, LLC, and Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and superiority. Additionally, the Appellate Division concurred that the Supreme Court's modified class definition successfully circumvented the creation of an impermissible "fail-safe" class.

Class certificationPrevailing wage disputeConstruction flaggersMisclassificationCPLR 901(a) factorsNumerosityCommonalityTypicalitySuperiorityFail safe class

References

Case No. 3-90-281-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 06, 1992

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham regarding Fidelity's liability as a bonding agent for attorney's fees. The dispute originated from an earlier case where a newly formed hospital district in Lee County was deemed unconstitutional, and its trustees were found to have violated the Open Meetings Act, leading to an award of attorney's fees against them. As the hospital district had no assets, Concerned Taxpayers sued Fidelity as the surety on the trustees' public official bonds. The trial court held Fidelity liable for the attorney's fees from the prior case but denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, ruling that public official bonds broadly cover damages, including attorney's fees resulting from the unfaithful performance of duties, and that the trustees' Open Meetings Act violations constituted such unfaithful performance. The court also found Concerned Taxpayers to be incidental beneficiaries in the current suit, thus not entitled to attorney's fees.

Public Official BondsSurety LiabilityAttorney's Fees RecoveryDeclaratory Judgment ActOpen Meetings Act ViolationDe Facto Officer DoctrineStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment AppealHospital District Formation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 28, 1979

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall

References

Case No. 03-04-00661-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 17, 2007

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Kenneth Garrett, convicted of indecent exposure, was classified as a "high-risk" sex offender, triggering public notification requirements. Garrett sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), its director Thomas A. Davis, Travis County, and community supervision officer Patricia Michele Padron, alleging improper classification and false public disclosures about a "second conviction." The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants regarding the "high-risk" classification, deeming it an impermissible collateral attack on his criminal conviction and privacy rights claims. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning Garrett's common-law tort claims (defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress) against Davis in his individual capacity, finding Davis failed to establish statutory immunity against claims for misstating Garrett's conviction history.

Sex Offender RegistrationHigh-Risk ClassificationIndecent ExposureCivil RightsDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentCollateral AttackStatutory ImmunityQualified Immunity

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against a summary judgment holding it liable, as a bonding agent, for attorney's fees. These fees were awarded in a prior lawsuit against its principals, the trustees of the Lee County Hospital District. The Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham had successfully challenged the hospital district's formation and the trustees' actions, leading to a judgment for attorney's fees which the defunct district could not satisfy. Fidelity argued that the bonds did not explicitly cover attorney's fees and that the trustees had not unfaithfully performed their duties because the district was void from inception. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Fidelity's bonds broadly covered damages from the trustees' unfaithful performance as de facto officers, which included violations of the Open Meetings Act. However, the court denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation.

Bonding Agent LiabilityAttorney's FeesPublic Official BondsFidelity BondsSummary JudgmentDe Facto OfficersUnfaithful PerformanceOpen Meetings ActHospital DistrictThird-Party Beneficiary

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The case concerns the liability of a workers’ compensation and liability insurance carrier for injuries sustained by an employee during work, allegedly due to the insurer's negligent safety inspections. Plaintiff was injured in October 1981 at a North Carolina bridge construction site. The defendant, the workers' compensation carrier, conducted periodic safety inspections. Plaintiff sued, claiming negligent inspection led to the injury. The Supreme Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that liability cannot be imposed on the carrier under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the insurer's inspections, primarily aimed at reducing its own risk, did not create a duty of care to the employee, as they did not make the work site less safe or place the plaintiff in a more vulnerable position. Imposing such a duty would extend liability beyond the insurance policy's scope and could lead to the discontinuation of safety programs, ultimately decreasing workplace safety.

Workers' CompensationLiability Insurance CarrierNegligent InspectionDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyThird-Party LiabilityIncidental BeneficiaryRisk Management

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,406 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 28, 2001

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

References

Case No. 657577/19

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 11, 2025

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Class certificationPrevailing wage disputeConstruction flaggersMisclassificationCPLR 901(a) factorsNumerosityCommonalityTypicalitySuperiorityFail safe class

References

Case No. 3-90-281-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 06, 1992

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 28, 1979

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall

References

Case No. 03-04-00661-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 17, 2007

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Bonding Agent LiabilityAttorney's FeesPublic Official BondsFidelity BondsSummary JudgmentDe Facto OfficersUnfaithful PerformanceOpen Meetings ActHospital DistrictThird-Party Beneficiary

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Workers' CompensationLiability Insurance CarrierNegligent InspectionDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyThird-Party LiabilityIncidental BeneficiaryRisk Management

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,406 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.