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

Bray v. Consolidated Coal Co.

Willis Bray, a coal miner, sought workers' compensation benefits for an occupational coal dust disease developed during his employment with Consolidation Coal Company. The defendant disputed liability, citing a one-year statute of limitations and attributing half of Bray's disability to a pre-existing heart condition. The court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim, as Bray's compensable disability and knowledge of his occupational disease only materialized in September 1967. The court concluded that Bray was entitled to recover for his lung disease, which was work-related, awarding him seventy-five percent permanent partial disability. Additionally, Bray was granted $1,093.10 for medical expenses, with the court noting a potential connection between his lung and heart conditions.

Occupational DiseaseCoal MinerPneumoconiosisStatute of LimitationsDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesHeart DiseaseLung DiseaseCausationNotice Requirements
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Briggs v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiffs, retired railroad workers, sued Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for sensorineural hearing loss and other personal injuries sustained due to long-term noise and vibration exposure during employment. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the hearing loss claims were time-barred and other claims lacked evidentiary support. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing the hearing loss claims as barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations. However, the court improperly dismissed claims for aggravation of injuries within the limitations period, injuries from negligent assignment, and certain other health problems for Briggs and Dineen. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating plaintiffs' claims for aggravation of hearing loss and injuries from negligent assignment, and for other unrelated injuries for Briggs and Dineen, while affirming the dismissal of time-barred hearing loss claims and specific health claims for Briggs and Vipari.

Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)Statute of LimitationsSensorineural Hearing LossRailroad WorkersOccupational ExposureSummary JudgmentContinuing Tort DoctrineNegligent AssignmentAggravation of InjuriesAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lechowicz v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff, a former railroad worker for defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), commenced an action under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for monetary damages due to personal injuries, including permanent sensorineural hearing loss, allegedly sustained from excessive noise and vibrations during employment. Conrail moved for summary judgment, arguing the hearing loss claim was time-barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (45 USC § 56) and other claims for

Federal Employers' Liability ActStatute of LimitationsOccupational DiseaseHearing LossSummary JudgmentAccrual DoctrineRailroad EmploymentPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate DecisionLatent Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Casualty Insurance Company v. Newman

J. R. Newman, Jr., suffered a back injury on November 13, 1952, while employed by Sinclair Refining Company, for which Consolidated Casualty Insurance Company was the Workmen’s Compensation carrier. Newman received compensation until May 3, 1953, and returned to work the following day. A jury found that the injury caused permanent partial disability of 25% starting May 4, 1953. The Insurance Carrier appealed, contesting the trial court's method of calculating compensation based on a percentage of incapacity rather than wage-earning capacity, and the lack of specific jury instructions on disability factors. Despite Newman earning similar or higher wages post-injury, evidence showed significant work limitations due to his back injury, including inability to perform heavy lifting or sustained stooping. Medical testimony provided varying percentages of partial disability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings and the method of issue submission in accordance with established Texas Workmen's Compensation law precedents.

Workmen's CompensationPartial DisabilityBack InjuryWage-earning CapacityJury InstructionsMedical EvaluationAppealsPermanent DisabilityTexas LawStipulation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. 13-09-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

Mission Consolidated School District v. Gloria Garcia

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Mission Consolidated Independent School District against Gloria Garcia. Garcia, a former employee, alleged violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) due to discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, and age, as well as retaliation after her termination. The District challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing insufficient jurisdictional facts, untimely filing under TCHRA, and that it was not an 'employer' as defined by the Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Garcia's pleadings sufficient, clarifying that the 60-day filing period is a limitation, not a jurisdictional bar, and upholding the Texas Supreme Court's precedent that TCHRA waives sovereign immunity for school districts.

Employment DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionRetaliationWrongful DischargeAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationState Law
References
43
Case No. 2021-05-0570
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

Lentz, Michael v. Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc., from a compensation order finding employee Michael Lentz's claim compensable for a right shoulder injury. Lentz sought unauthorized medical treatment, including surgery, after the employer disputed the causation and benefits. The trial court determined the injury was compensable and awarded disability benefits but denied reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses. The Appeals Board affirmed the compensability and disability benefits, but reversed the trial court's denial of stipulated medical expenses, modifying the compensation order to include their reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation AppealShoulder InjuryMedical CausationUnauthorized Medical TreatmentDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesPanel PhysicianRebuttable PresumptionExpert Medical OpinionOsteoarthritis
References
12
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 6,297 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