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

Claim of Colas, ex rel. Bermudez v. Watermain

A worker was killed at her workplace by a former romantic partner who was also a coworker, leading to a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, ruling that the death did not arise out of employment, as it was motivated by personal animosity between the decedent and her assailant. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the employer successfully rebutted the presumption of compensability for unwitnessed workplace deaths by presenting substantial evidence of a personal animosity motive, stemming from the decedent's recent separation from her assailant and documented threats.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPersonal AnimosityWorkplace ViolencePresumption of CompensabilityRebuttal of PresumptionDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewCausationEmployment-Related Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 1997

In re the Claim of Madden

Claimant was suspended from her employment as a typist due to disruptive, insubordinate, and threatening behavior, following prior warnings. An arbitration hearing confirmed the suspension was warranted based on threats made to co-workers and a history of disruptive conduct. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted these findings, ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that threats and disruptive behavior in the workplace constitute misconduct and that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Claimant's remaining contentions were reviewed and found without merit.

unemployment insurancemisconductsuspensiondisruptive behaviorinsubordinationthreatsarbitrationappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceBoard decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff James Murphy sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) under FELA, alleging a knee injury from unsafe workplace conditions and emotional distress from a supervisor's gun threats, as well as the MTA's order to return to a feared work environment. The court granted summary judgment for the MTA on the knee injury and the 'return to Penn Station' claims, determining no negligence was demonstrated for the stanchion placement, and the 'zone of danger' test was not met for the return order. However, summary judgment was denied for the negligent supervision claim concerning the gun threats, as a jury issue was found regarding the supervisor's violent propensities and the MTA's knowledge of them. Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his complaint was also denied.

FELASummary JudgmentNegligenceEmotional DistressWorkplace SafetyIntentional TortRespondeat SuperiorNegligent SupervisionZone of DangerFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
36
Case No. 08-02-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2004

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Loa, Daniel R.

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict where Daniel R. Loa sued Union Pacific Railroad Company for workplace harassment under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Loa, a Mexican-American employee, experienced daily racial slurs and threats from his supervisor, Kevin Goewey, and alleged retaliation after filing an EEOC complaint. The jury initially awarded substantial compensatory and punitive damages, which were remitted by the trial court. On appeal, the Court affirmed the finding of workplace harassment but reversed the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of "severe" emotional distress. The court further reformed the judgment, capping total damages (compensatory and punitive) at $300,000 under the TCHRA and remanded the case for the trial court to determine reasonable attorney's fees.

workplace harassmentnational origin discriminationintentional infliction of emotional distresspunitive damagescompensatory damagesattorney's feesTCHRATexas Labor Codeappellate reviewdamages cap
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. ADJ10900743, ADJ10900742
Regular
Apr 20, 2020

JIMMY CUELLAR vs. BREEDERS CHOICE PET FOOD, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought reconsideration of an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The applicant claimed injury to multiple body parts, including a psychiatric injury. The Appeals Board found the existing record insufficient to determine the cause of the claimed psychiatric injury due to conflicting testimony regarding workplace stressors and alleged threats. Consequently, the Board rescinded the ALJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings to develop the record, including potentially obtaining a medical evaluator.

WCABReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersQualified Medical Evaluatorpsychiatric injuryfurther developmentsubstantial evidencemedical opinionstressharassment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Oswego County Self Insurance Plan

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied benefits for mental stress and anxiety stemming from an office manager's outburst. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the claim compensable, but the Board reversed, determining the claimant had not experienced stress greater than that typically found in a normal work environment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing evidence that the outburst was an isolated incident not directed at the claimant and lacked physical threat. Furthermore, the court noted that arguments and raised voices were not unusual in that workplace.

Workers' CompensationMental StressAccidental InjuryWork-related StressUndue Job-related StressNormal Work EnvironmentIsolated EventOffice Manager OutburstProfanitiesAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ12441930
Regular
Dec 21, 2020

MARIA ESQUIVEL vs. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP

This case involves a worker's compensation claim for a psychiatric injury sustained by Maria Esquivel against The Permanente Medical Group. The Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding that Esquivel's injury was predominantly caused by actual events of employment, not merely a stage for personal issues. Evidence included coworker harassment, a restraining order against a coworker who stalked her daughter using company resources, and threats perceived as life-threatening. The Board distinguished this case from precedent where workplace gossip was deemed incidental, finding instead a direct causal link between Esquivel's employment and her injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationExecutive Order N-68-20Atascadero Unified School District v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Geredes)causal connectionpsychiatric injuryneuropsychological panel qualified medical examinationDr. Kyle Van Gaasbeekco-employeesGlenda Carrera
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Zeltwanger

Justice O'Neill, joined by Justice Smith, penned a concurring opinion regarding the viability of intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, specifically criticizing the Court's 'gap-filler' approach as unworkable. The opinion argues for emphasizing a stringent threshold for such claims in the workplace, requiring conduct to be 'extreme and outrageous' and beyond all bounds of decency. Referencing GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, O'Neill asserts that Zeltwanger's allegations, while reprehensible, do not meet the high standard of severe physical abuse, intimidation, or threats required to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress liability. Therefore, while concurring with the judgment, O'Neill disagrees with the Court's reasoning.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkplace ConductSexual Harassment ClaimsExtreme and Outrageous Conduct StandardTort LawConcurring OpinionEmployer LiabilityEmployment DisputesLegal ThresholdEvidentiary Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 1,082 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