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

Verson Allsteel Press Co. v. Carrier Corp. & Carrier Air Conditioning

Verson Allsteel Press Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Carrier Corporation and Carrier Air Conditioning Company. The case involves an employee, Steven Paul Gandy, who was injured operating a press brake manufactured by Verson. Gandy received worker's compensation and subsequently sued Verson, securing a judgment. Verson then sought indemnification from Carrier based on terms in the press brake's production order. Carrier argued the indemnification was barred by Texas Civil Statutes due to a lack of an express written agreement. The appellate court found that the indemnity clauses did constitute an express written agreement, thus reversing the summary judgment and remanding the case for trial on the merits.

IndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentContract LawProduct LiabilityTexas Civil StatutesExpress AgreementReversed and RemandedPress Brake InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
14
Case No. A-16-CA-060-SS
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Sullivan

This case addresses whether the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts provisions of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) that regulate the reimbursement rates for air ambulance services. Plaintiff Air Evac EMS, Inc. argued that the TWCA's restrictions on its charges for services to workers' compensation patients are preempted by the ADA. The State Defendants (Texas Commissioner of Insurance and Texas Commissioner of Workers' Compensation) and Intervenor Defendants (multiple workers' compensation insurers) contended against preemption, citing a presumption against federal interference with state police powers and the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court found that the ADA's preemption provision, which broadly prohibits state laws related to an air carrier's prices, routes, or services, applies to the TWCA's compensation scheme for air ambulance providers. Furthermore, the court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not shield the TWCA provisions because they regulate the 'business of insurance companies' rather than the 'business of insurance.' As a result, the court granted Air Evac's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motions, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the State Defendants from enforcing the challenged TWCA provisions against Air Evac.

Airline Deregulation ActTexas Workers' Compensation ActFederal PreemptionAir Ambulance ServicesPrice RegulationMcCarran-Ferguson ActSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
49
Case No. No. 05-11-01377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Noell, David W., City of Carrollton, Carrollton Property Standards Board, Crow-Billingsley Air Park, LTD, Henry Billingsley v. Air Park Common Area Preservation Association, Chad Maisel, Amy Eklund, and Dale Burgdorf

This case involves a dispute between homeowners of Air Park Dallas, a residential airpark community, and a real estate developer (Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd. and Henry Billingsley), the Air Park Zoning Committee, and the City of Carrollton. The homeowners sued after the City ordered the airpark’s airport closed following its annexation of a portion of the airport and the passage of a regulating ordinance. The trial court initially found the ordinance facially valid but the closure order invalid, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to homeowners against the City and against the developer for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the closure order but reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, remanding claims concerning its constitutionality. The court also affirmed most of the jury’s findings against the developer and Zoning Committee, modifying only a specific part of the injunction.

Property RightsZoning OrdinanceEasementsBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyMunicipal LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineAirport Regulation
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PHI Air Med., LLC v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co.

This case concerns PHI Air Medical, LLC's dispute with various insurers over reimbursement rates for air ambulance services for workers' compensation in Texas. The central issue is whether the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts state laws and rules that regulate these rates. The court concludes that the ADA indeed preempts these state provisions because they relate to the price of an air carrier's services. Furthermore, the court found that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not "reverse-preempt" the ADA, as the state regulations primarily aim to control insurers' costs rather than regulate the "business of insurance" itself. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the finding that the state's rate-setting provisions are preempted.

Airline Deregulation ActPreemptionAir Ambulance ServicesWorkers' CompensationReimbursement RatesMcCarran-Ferguson ActInsurance RegulationState LawFederal LawTexas Labor Code
References
31
Case No. 533623
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2022

Matter of Vaughan v. Heritage Air Sys., Inc.

Claimant Georgina M. Vaughan sought workers' compensation death benefits for her deceased spouse, a former sheet metal worker who died from cardiopulmonary arrest due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An autopsy by Dr. Evgeny Olenko concluded his death was due to COPD following prolonged exposure to construction dusts and noxious gases during his employment with Heritage Air Systems, Inc., an opinion corroborated by the carrier's medical expert, Dr. Carl Friedman. The Workers' Compensation Board granted the claim, establishing a causal relationship between his employment and death. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the Board's reliance on the decedent's statements and the sufficiency of medical evidence. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding the decedent's statements properly corroborated and substantial evidence supporting the causal link.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausationOccupational ExposureCOPDSheet Metal WorkerCorroborationMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L. B. Smith, Inc. v. Circle Air Freight Corp.

Defendant and third-party plaintiff Circle Air Freight Corp. moved to dismiss two affirmative defenses raised by third-party defendant Iberia Air Lines of Spain. The court denied the motion to strike the first affirmative defense, 'failure to state a cause of action,' as it is not subject to such a motion. Regarding the second affirmative defense, which asserted that the action was time-barred by the two-year period in Warsaw Convention article 29, Circle argued this period was inapplicable to contribution claims. However, the court ruled that Warsaw Convention article 29 constitutes an absolute condition precedent to suit, not merely a statute of limitations, and its two-year period applies broadly to all actions for damages, including those for contribution, overriding conflicting State laws. Consequently, Circle's motion to strike Iberia's second affirmative defense was also denied.

Warsaw ConventionContributionStatute of LimitationsCondition PrecedentAir Carrier LiabilityThird-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseDismissal MotionFederal SupremacyTreaty Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) moved to lift the automatic stay imposed during Eastern Air Lines, Inc.'s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. ALPA sought to continue three arbitration proceedings related to a pay-parity provision in their collective bargaining agreement, which had been automatically stayed. The court considered the federal policy favoring labor arbitration, the potential impact on the bankruptcy estate, and the willingness of arbitrators to allow the Official Unsecured Creditor’s Committee to participate. Finding that 'cause' existed to modify the stay and noting the availability of claims estimation under 11 U.S.C. § 502(c) as a safeguard against undue delay, the court granted ALPA's motion, allowing the arbitration proceedings to resume.

Bankruptcy ProceedingsAutomatic Stay ReliefLabor ArbitrationCollective BargainingRailway Labor ActPay Parity GrievanceChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditors' Committee ParticipationSection 362(d)Dispute Resolution
References
23
Case No. 79 Civ. 1536, 79 Civ. 1570
Regular Panel Decision

Iberia Air Lines v. National Mediation Board

Iberia Air Lines moved for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it lawfully changed employee terms on February 23, 1979, after negotiations with the IAM deadlocked. The core issue was whether the IAM's request for mediation to the National Mediation Board (NMB) was timely under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) Section 6, which mandates a ten-day window for such requests after conference termination. The NMB's offices were intermittently closed due to a federal holiday and a snowstorm, and the IAM's formal request was received after the ten-day period. The court granted Iberia's motion, ruling that the RLA's plain language allows carriers to implement changes if mediation services are not invoked within the specified ten days, rejecting the government's arguments for an extended status quo or tolling of the period due to unforeseen closures or a mere telephone call.

Railway Labor ActNational Mediation BoardCollective BargainingLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentUnilateral ChangeStatus QuoTimelinessStatutory InterpretationAir Carrier
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

District 100, International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

Plaintiff District 100, a district lodge of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), initiated this action against Air France, a foreign air carrier, seeking to compel the processing of a grievance related to a prior Mediation Agreement. The dispute stemmed from Air France's decision to contract out commissary work, which resulted in the termination of commissary supervisors. Former supervisor Pasquale Ianniciello filed a grievance, which Air France refused to accept, arguing the supervisors were no longer employees. The court considered Air France's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on several grounds. Ultimately, the court granted Air France's motion, concluding that District 100 lacked standing, the dispute constituted a major change not amenable to existing grievance procedures, and Air France had not frustrated the System Board of Adjustment's operation.

GrievanceLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStandingSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissRailway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeSystem Board of Adjustment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compagnie Nationale Air France

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought a preliminary injunction against Air France to prevent the unilateral cancellation of their collective bargaining agreement from January 3, 1977, and to compel Air France to continue recognizing IAM as the representative for cargo agents. Air France terminated the agreement citing Article XVII(q), which was triggered by a National Mediation Board (NMB) decision concerning United Air Lines freight agents, interpreting it as permitting separate bargaining units for cargo agents. IAM contended that Air France's actions violated the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and that Article XVII(q) itself was illegal and an attempt to bypass RLA procedures. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, categorizing the dispute as both a 'minor dispute' concerning contract interpretation, falling under the National Railroad Adjustment Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and a 'major dispute' regarding employee representation, which is under the primary jurisdiction of the NMB. Since administrative remedies had not been exhausted, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the case was dismissed.

Labor LawRailway Labor ActCollective BargainingPreliminary InjunctionJurisdictionMinor DisputeMajor DisputeNational Mediation BoardNational Railroad Adjustment BoardUnion Representation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,967 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