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

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Claim of Tully v. Live Right Realty Corp.

The claimant, a painter and plasterer, suffered a heart attack while working. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Jules Reich, rather than Live Right Realty Corporation. This decision was upheld by a Workers’ Compensation Board panel and subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion, citing factors such as Reich's control over the claimant's work, provision of materials, payment method, and right to discharge.

Employer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl of WorkMethod of PaymentRight to DischargeAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeHeart AttackLabor Law
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

German v. Whaley

This case addresses whether Ova Whaley, operating as Whaley Brothers Construction, was an employee of John C. German, d/b/a Chris German Construction Company, or an independent contractor. Whaley sustained injuries while operating equipment and claimed workers' compensation benefits, asserting employee status. German's insurance carrier filed a complaint arguing Whaley was an independent contractor. The trial court found Whaley to be an employee, noting German's right to control and terminate. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, applying the seven tests from Masiers v. Arrow Transfer & Storage Co., which include right to control, termination, method of payment, freedom to hire helpers, furnishing of tools, self-scheduling, and freedom to work for other entities. The court found that the evidence, particularly regarding Whaley's entrepreneurial activities, payment method without deductions, and freedom to work for others, overwhelmingly indicated an independent contractor relationship, despite German's theoretical right to control or terminate.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusWorkers' CompensationRight to ControlRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing EquipmentMultiple EmployersConstruction IndustryMachine Operator
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. 14-05-00909-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2007

Ellwood Texas Forge Corporation v. Bobby Jones and Kelly Jones

Bobby Jones, an employee of independent contractor Process Installations (PI), was injured in a fall while replacing an air conditioning unit on Ellwood Texas Forge Corporation's premises. Jones and his wife, Kelly, sued Ellwood for negligence, alleging Ellwood retained control over PI's work and failed to ensure safety, as per Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 95.003. A jury initially found in favor of the Joneses, but the appellate court reviewed the evidence for legal and factual sufficiency regarding Ellwood's control over PI's work. The court determined that Ellwood's right to forbid unsafe work or its general safety rules did not constitute the requisite actual control over the 'operative details' of PI's work. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment against the Joneses.

workplace injuryindependent contractor liabilitypremises liabilityemployer controlnegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 95legal sufficiencyfactual sufficiencyfall protection
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Rensselaer County Sheriff's Department v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Lora Abbott Seabury, an employee at a correctional facility, filed a complaint in 2010 alleging sexual harassment by male coworkers, creating a hostile work environment. An Administrative Law Judge found in her favor, recommending substantial economic and non-economic damages. The Commissioner of Human Rights adjusted the economic damages but adopted the recommendations. The correctional facility (petitioner) sought to annul the determination, while Seabury sought modification and confirmation. The Court upheld the finding of a hostile work environment due to gender-based harassment, crediting Seabury's testimony about daily harassment, supervisors' inaction, and gender-biased statements. The Court also affirmed the $300,000 award for noneconomic injuries, finding it supported by evidence of severe psychological trauma, including PTSD and major depressive disorder. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Seabury's award should not be offset by workers' compensation benefits and that pension losses must be compensated, remitting the matter to determine those damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewDamages AwardEconomic DamagesNoneconomic DamagesWorkers' Compensation OffsetPension BenefitsDuty to Mitigate
References
29
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02129 [215 AD3d 973]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2023

Matter of Town of Hempstead v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Lisa Whitaker, a life skills counselor, suffered a work-related injury and filed a discrimination complaint against the Town of Hempstead with the NYS Division of Human Rights (DHR) after being denied a return to work with accommodations and subsequently terminated. The DHR Commissioner found unlawful discrimination and awarded back pay, compensatory damages, and a civil penalty. Upon review, the Appellate Division found insufficient evidence for some of the original awards. Consequently, it reduced the amounts for back pay, mental anguish, and the civil penalty, while otherwise confirming and enforcing the DHR's determination as amended.

DiscriminationDisability AccommodationBack PayCompensatory DamagesCivil PenaltyEmployment TerminationCivil Service LawHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation OffsetAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Long v. Schenectady County Young Men's Christian Ass'n

Karen C. Long, a participant in a counselor aide training program at the Schenectady County YMCA's Camp Chingachgook, suffered an injury in 1989. Following a personal injury lawsuit against the YMCA, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Long was an employee of the YMCA and her injury was work-related, which the claimants then appealed. The court analyzed factors such as the right of control, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, right of discharge, and the nature of the work. Evidence showed Long received tuition reduction, free room and board, and was required to obtain working papers, while the YMCA provided equipment and retained the right to dismiss her. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipCounselor AideYMCACamp InjuryBoard Decision AppealControl TestPayment MethodEquipment Provision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Peddy

D. O. Peddy sued Houston Pipe Line Company for personal injuries after a hellhole collapsed during pipe repair work. The jury found Houston Pipe Line Company negligent, leading to a judgment for Peddy and also for New Amsterdam Casualty Company, the compensation carrier which intervened. The defendant appealed, arguing there was no evidence supporting their retained right of control over the work or the hellhole's construction. The appellate court found no evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the defendant's right to control the construction of the hellhole, concluding that the Construction Company was an independent contractor. Therefore, the judgment against the defendant was reversed, and judgment was rendered that the plaintiff and intervenor take nothing.

Personal injurynegligenceindependent contractorpremises liabilityappellate reviewjury findingsproximate causesupervisory controlworkplace accidentpipe line
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 16,681 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