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. M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2024

Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company (Dissenting)

This dissenting opinion addresses a premises liability suit by Brian Coblentz against Tractor Supply Company. The central issue is whether Tractor Supply is Coblentz's statutory employer, which would preclude his tort claim due to workers' compensation's exclusive remedy provision. The majority concluded that Tractor Supply is a statutory employer, based on existing Tennessee caselaw. The dissenting judge argues that Tennessee caselaw has not adequately considered vendor-vendee relationships, like that between Tractor Supply and Coblentz's immediate employer, Stanley National (a product vendor), when determining statutory employer status. The dissent posits that applying the current framework to vendors improperly expands workers' compensation liability and reduces employee protections against negligence, advocating for further examination of this legal gap.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerPremises LiabilityVendor-Vendee RelationshipSubcontractor StatusExclusive RemedyDissenting OpinionContract LawTennessee LawTort Immunity
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ehlinger

This case concerns an appeal by New York Underwriters, a worker's compensation insurer, challenging an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award of death benefits to the statutory beneficiaries of the deceased worker, Clarence G. Ehlinger. The insurer initially filed an appeal in district court, mistakenly naming the deceased worker as the sole defendant. After the statutory 20-day appeal period expired, an amended petition was filed correctly identifying the beneficiaries as defendants. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by this court. The court ruled that the original petition naming the deceased was a nullity and did not confer jurisdiction over the beneficiaries, and the subsequent untimely amendment failed to cure this jurisdictional defect. The beneficiaries were thus entitled to stand on the IAB award.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory BeneficiariesMistaken IdentityParty MisnomerTexas LawAppellate ProcedureDeath Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. SAU2262762
Regular
Sep 17, 2019

KEVIN TUCKER vs. E.L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION CO., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) must pay a medical lien assigned to EDS Financial Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied EDS's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that issue preclusion bars EDS from relitigating the lien's status as a "covered claim." The Board found that the identical issues of whether the assigned lien constituted a covered claim under Insurance Code section 1063.1 were actually litigated and decided in a previous case, *Wanda Fullylove*. EDS's arguments regarding separate statutory provisions and the nature of assignments were rejected, as prior litigation fully addressed the claim's covered status under CIGA's statutory framework, including the exclusion for assignee claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGACovered ClaimIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelInsurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(1)(F)Insurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)AssigneeLien Claimant
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hackler v. H. Kohnstamm & Co. of Texas

H. Kohnstamm & Company of Texas, a judgment creditor, initiated a statutory action against Sheriff H. F. Hackler of Camp County and his sureties. The action stemmed from the sheriff's alleged failure and refusal to levy an execution on the property of judgment debtor George Collins, and for making a false return. The creditor claimed Collins possessed leviable assets, including his Pittsburg Laundry business, which he sold for a substantial sum while the execution was in the sheriff's possession. The sheriff contended he exercised due diligence and believed the property was exempt as 'tools and apparatus' of a trade. The court, citing precedents, determined that some assets, such as a cash register and scales, were not exempt. Consequently, the court found sufficient support in the record for the trial court's implied findings that not all laundry assets were wholly exempt and that the sheriff failed to exercise due diligence, leading to the affirmation of the judgment against the sheriff.

Execution of JudgmentSheriff LiabilityExempt PropertyTools and Apparatus ExemptionFalse ReturnDue DiligenceStatutory ActionTexas LawProperty LevyJudgment Creditor
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00169 [168 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2019

Matter of Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgt.

Claimant Rosalind M. Villagra sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury sustained at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence. Subsequently, claimant filed an application for Board review, requesting a rehearing or reopening of her claim, arguing the WCLJ's decision was inconsistent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, deeming it an untimely appeal from the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board applied an incorrect statutory framework and should have evaluated the application as one for rehearing or reopening.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of AppealApplication for RehearingReopening of ClaimPrima Facie Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory FrameworkProcedural ErrorRemittal to Board
References
5
Case No. No. 23-0629
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2024

State of Texas Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas Texas Medical Board And Stephen Brint Carlton, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board v. Amanda Zurawski Lauren Miller Lauren Hall Anna Zargarian Ashley Brandt Kylie Beaton Jessica Bernardo Samantha Casiano Austin Dennard, D.O. Taylor Edwards Kiersten Hogan Lauren Van Vleet Elizabeth Weller Damla Karsan, M.D., on Behalf of Herself and Her Patients And Judy Levison, M.D., M.P.H., on Behalf of Herself and Her Patients

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a direct appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the state's abortion laws. The case involved plaintiffs challenging the Human Life Protection Act, arguing confusion among physicians regarding life-saving abortions. The Court clarified that Texas law permits abortions when a physician, using reasonable medical judgment, determines a life-threatening physical condition places the woman at risk of death or serious physical impairment. It emphasized that the law does not require death to be imminent or prior physical impairment. The Court ultimately vacated the trial court's injunction, finding it unconstitutionally departed from the statutory language and the existing legal framework.

AbortionTexas LawLife-Saving AbortionMedical JudgmentHuman Life Protection ActDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionPregnancy ComplicationsConstitutional LawJudicial Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barkley v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff Bonnie Barkley sued the United Postal Service after her request for reinstatement was denied, alleging the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and violated her civil rights under the Privacy Act. Barkley had previously resigned for personal and medical reasons and subsequently sought to return to a different branch. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that as a non-preference eligible, non-supervisory postal employee, Barkley lacked statutory entitlement to judicial review under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). Citing United States v. Fausto, the court affirmed that the CSRA's comprehensive framework precluded such review for excluded employees. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Employment LawCivil Service Reform Act (CSRA)Judicial ReviewJurisdictionMerit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)Postal Service EmployeesReinstatement DenialPrivacy ActAdministrative LawArbitrary and Capricious
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,496 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