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

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Robert Garcia, a pipe-fitter's helper, filed a workers' compensation claim after a work-related injury. He was subsequently terminated by Wyler Industrial Works, Inc., who claimed it was due to a low budget and his unavailability for Saturday work. Garcia sued for wrongful termination, and a jury found Wyler discharged him for filing the claim, awarding $60,000 in damages. Wyler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for both liability and damages, as well as errors in prejudgment interest and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support Garcia's termination due to his workers' compensation claim and the damage award, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule
References
61
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crews v. County of Nassau

Raheem Crews and his son sued the County of Nassau and its officials for various torts, including false arrest and malicious prosecution, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The defendants moved to implead Crews' former counsel, Arshad Majid and his law firm, alleging negligence and seeking contribution. The court denied the motion, ruling that a criminal defense attorney owes no duty of care to prosecutors, thus precluding a negligence claim. Additionally, the court found that contribution claims are not available for Section 1983 actions. For the pendent state law claims, the court concluded that even if a contribution claim could theoretically exist, impleading Majid would cause undue delay, confuse the issues, and prejudice the plaintiffs.

Impleader MotionNegligence ClaimContribution ClaimSection 1983State Law Tort ClaimsMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestUnlawful ImprisonmentAbuse of ProcessLegal Malpractice
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. J. Crew Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Soto, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while dusting a display shelf at a J. Crew store. He sued J. Crew and The Mercer I L.L.C. under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying Soto's task as routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing criteria to differentiate routine cleaning from covered activities and concluding that dusting a display shelf was not within the statute's protective scope. The decision clarifies the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation-related risks in commercial cleaning.

Labor LawElevation RiskRoutine MaintenanceCommercial CleaningPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLadder FallWorkplace Safety
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Lincoln Brass Works, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nathan Brewer, an employee of Lincoln Brass Works, Inc., sustained a work-related back injury in 1992 and received a lump sum workers’ compensation award. Following an aggravation of his injury in 1994 and further surgeries, Mr. Brewer filed a petition for enlarged benefits under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241(a)(2). The trial court initially granted these benefits, but the workers’ compensation panel reversed, asserting that lump sum payments were final, the petition was time-barred, and findings were insufficient. The Supreme Court addressed the conflict between statutes regarding lump sum finality and award enlargement, holding that lump sum awards can be enlarged if criteria are met, but § 241(a)(2) is not the correct avenue for claims involving subsequent injuries or increased anatomical disability. Consequently, the Court dismissed Brewer’s petition without prejudice, directing that his claim for additional impairment should have been filed as a new, separate action.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLump Sum Payment FinalityAward EnlargementAnatomical ImpairmentIndustrial Disability RatingSubsequent Work InjuryAggravation of Prior InjuryStatute of Limitations AccrualDisability Benefits ReconsiderationSpinal Disc Rupture
References
6
Case No. M2003-00585-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Crew One Productions, Inc. v. State of Tennessee

The State of Tennessee appealed a Claims Commission decision that found Crew One Productions, Inc. was exempt from state employment tax under a federal safe harbor provision, Section 530. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that Tennessee's Employment Security Law, though to be construed in pari materia with federal law, does not mandate the adoption of every federal relief provision, especially those not codified as part of the Internal Revenue Code. The court concluded that Tennessee is not bound by federal Section 530 determinations and reinstated the Department of Labor and Workforce Development's assessment of employment taxes against Crew One.

Employment TaxIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationFederal Safe HarborSection 530Statutory InterpretationState Employment LawTennesseeTax LiabilityAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crew v. First Source Furniture Group

Lacay Crew filed a workers' compensation claim against First Source Furniture Group, d/b/a Anderson Hickey Company, alleging injuries to her hands, wrists, and arms. The trial court initially found a compensable gradual injury and awarded permanent partial disability benefits. However, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed, citing insufficient evidence of causation from her employment with Anderson Hickey. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Appeals Panel's decision, concluding that Crew failed to establish a causal connection between her carpal tunnel syndrome and her employment with Anderson Hickey. The Court also applied the 'last injurious injury' rule, finding that her subsequent employment at Paslode likely aggravated her condition, thereby precluding Anderson Hickey's liability and reversing the award of discretionary costs.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Stress InjuryCausationLast Injurious Injury RuleMedical EvidenceEMGDe Quervain’s TendonitisLupus DiagnosisPermanent Partial Disability
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 10,497 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