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

Barnett v. Milan Seating Systems

Frances Barnett, an employee of Milan Seating Systems, suffered bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, leading to two workers' compensation lawsuits. The first settled a left-hand injury, while the second sought compensation for a right-hand carpal tunnel and a cubital tunnel injury. A key issue on appeal was whether Barnett was still employed by her "pre-injury employer" after Milan Seating was sold to Kongsberg Automotive, which impacted the application of a 1.5 multiplier to her benefits. The court reversed the chancery court's decision, ruling that a company sale means an employee is no longer with the pre-injury employer, thus lifting the 1.5 multiplier cap for the cubital tunnel injury. However, the appellate court affirmed the chancery court's finding that the right carpal tunnel injury was not new, and further compensation was barred by res judicata. The case was remanded for vocational disability determination regarding the cubital tunnel injury without the multiplier limitation.

Workers' CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromePre-Injury EmployerStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataPermanent Partial ImpairmentVocational DisabilityCompany SaleMultiplier Cap
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. Martin Marietta Energy Systems

This case involves an appeal by employee Roy Cox, Jr. regarding the percentage of permanent disability awarded, and an appeal by the Tennessee Department of Labor, Second Injury Fund, concerning the apportionment of disability benefits between the employer and the Fund. Cox sustained multiple back injuries, including a service-related injury in 1979, an employment-related injury in 1988, and another in 1990 while working for Martin Marietta. The trial court awarded an additional 40 percent permanent disability for the 1990 injury and apportioned it between the employer (15%) and the Fund (25%), considering a prior Veteran's Administration disability award. The Supreme Court affirmed the 40 percent disability award but ruled that the Veteran's Administration award should not be considered under T.C.A. § 50-6-208(b), modifying the apportionment to 35 percent for Martin Marietta and 5 percent for the Second Injury Fund.

Disability ApportionmentSecond Injury Fund LiabilityVeteran's Administration BenefitsPrior Disability AwardsSubsequent Injury BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory ConstructionTennessee Workers' Compensation ActEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Impairment
References
7
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broadhurst v. Employees Retirement System

Nancy Broadhurst, a Child Protective Services specialist, sought occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after suffering a back injury. The Board of Trustees for ERS denied her application, concluding her disability did not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disability," specifically the requirement that the injury result from an "inherent risk or hazard peculiar to a duty." Broadhurst appealed the decision, arguing the Board misinterpreted the statute and that her injury, though occurring while sitting in a chair, was related to the increased risks of her job. The district court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the act causing the injury (sitting in a chair) was not peculiar to her duties, and thus she did not satisfy the statutory criteria.

Occupational DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Government CodeInherent RiskPeculiar HazardState Employee BenefitsBack Injury
References
10
Case No. 2017-08-0751; State File No. 15611-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2019

Holdway, Terri v. Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems

This case concerns Terri Holdway, a nurse seeking workers' compensation benefits for a mental injury allegedly stemming from a patient assault in February 2016 at Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems. Ms. Holdway claimed PTSD, depression, and anxiety, but medical records indicated pre-existing mental health issues. The court heard conflicting expert testimonies from Dr. Melvin Goldin, who diagnosed PTSD, and Dr. Joel A. Reisman, who refuted the PTSD diagnosis, citing Ms. Holdway's return to work and lack of avoidance behavior. The court sided with Dr. Reisman, finding that Ms. Holdway did not prove her mental injury arose primarily from her employment. Consequently, the claim for mental injury benefits was denied, though ongoing medical benefits for her facial injury were awarded.

Mental Injury ClaimPTSD DenialWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNurse InjuryPatient AssaultPre-existing ConditionsExpert Medical TestimonyDSM 5 CriteriaCausation DisputeEmployment Stress
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cravotta v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a New York City sanitation worker, sustained a knee injury after allegedly slipping on a sanitation truck step contaminated by a slippery substance from a dump site. His application for accidental disability retirement benefits from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) was denied, as his injury was not deemed an "accident" under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b. The petitioner challenged this determination, but both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The courts found that the injury occurred during routine duties and was not so extraordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury.

Accidental disabilityRetirement benefitsSanitation workerKnee injurySlipping accidentRoutine dutiesNYCERSAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAnnulment petition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A maintenance employee for the New York City Housing Authority sustained a right knee injury in March 1978 during a mugging and reinjured it in May 1979 while moving a refrigerator. His application for accident disability retirement was denied by the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, whose medical board found no causal relationship between the 1978 incident and the disability, and no accident in 1979. Special Term initially vacated this determination, concluding the 1979 event was an accident. However, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's judgment, holding that an injury occurring without an unexpected event during ordinary employment duties does not constitute an accidental injury. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove an unexpected event, as his knee merely 'gave way' while moving a refrigerator, and therefore dismissed the petition.

Accident Disability RetirementNew York City Employees’ Retirement SystemKnee InjuryPerformance of DutiesCausal RelationshipMedical Board OpinionCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAccidental Injury DefinitionBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. LR SYSTEMS

Walter Clarke, a 74-year-old former employee of Favorite Plastics, Inc., filed a products liability action against LR Systems and Lasits Rohline Service, Inc. for injuries sustained in an industrial accident on August 13, 1996. Clarke's right hand was pulled into an SG Granulator 300 machine, resulting in the loss of part of his thumb and injury to three fingers. He alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, claiming inadequate warnings and a design defect in the grinder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, finding Clarke was aware of the danger. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied on the defective design claims, ruling that the expert testimony regarding the feasibility of an interlocked guard was admissible.

Products LiabilityIndustrial AccidentGranulator MachineDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyNip Point HazardV-belt DriveMachine Safety
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blankenship v. American Ordnance Systems, LLS

Gatha Blankenship, an employee of American Ordnance Systems, LLC, was temporarily laid off in February 2002. She voluntarily took an upper body strength test on the employer's premises on March 7, 2002, for new job openings, despite not being compensated or required to do so. Immediately after the test, she experienced back pain, later diagnosed as a bulging disc. The trial court denied workers' compensation benefits, ruling the injury did not arise out of her employment. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, concluding that her injury was not compensable as it did not arise out of or occur in the course of her employment, given her voluntary participation and lack of compensation for the test.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryStrength TestVoluntary ParticipationCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentLayoffCausationCompensabilityAppeal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Protter v. Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc.

The case involves Erwin Protter and his three fast-food franchise corporations suing Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc. and its officers for fraud and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations. Protter alleged misrepresentations regarding training, profit margins, and the use of IPO funds, alongside omissions of material facts such as hidden costs and sales declines in other franchises, which he claimed induced him to purchase three Nathan's franchises. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting it was time-barred and failed to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claims with prejudice, citing plaintiffs' failure to plead a distinct enterprise from the persons, acquisition injury under §1962(b), and investment injury under §1962(a). Despite finding the allegations regarding another defrauded franchisee, Steven Lenter, potentially sufficient for an "open-ended scheme" to satisfy the pattern of racketeering requirement at the motion to dismiss stage, the specific deficiencies in the other RICO subsections led to their dismissal. Consequently, the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Franchise FraudRICO ViolationsRacketeering ActivityMotion to DismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)Fraudulent MisrepresentationInvestment InjuryAcquisition InjuryEnterprise-Person Distinctness
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 18,824 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