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

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gentile v. Nulty

Police Officer Steven Gentile sued his employers, Kevin A. Nulty (Chief of Police) and the Town of Orangetown, alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York General Municipal Law § 207-c.l. Gentile claimed defendants continually denied him workers' compensation benefits in retaliation for previous legal actions to secure those benefits related to two work-related injuries: post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing Gentile waived his rights by paying doctors directly and that they preserved their right to challenge liability. The court denied defendants' motions, finding Gentile had not waived his rights and defendants had not preserved their right to challenge liability, and stated an inclination to grant partial summary judgment to Gentile on the issue of liability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPolice Officer RightsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c.lRetaliatory ActionsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentWaiver of RightsSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. 01-15-00152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way, L.L.C. v. Martinez R.O.W., LLC F/K/A Martinez Investments

Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way, L.L.C. (Appellants) contracted with Southern Brush S.W., Inc., and then subcontracted part of the work to Martinez R.O.W., L.L.C. (Appellee). An employee of Martinez, Bonifacio Gomez, was injured on the job and sued Mullins. Mullins filed a cross-claim against Martinez for indemnity and contribution, arguing Martinez agreed to indemnify Blue Sky and Mullins. Martinez, a workers' compensation subscriber, moved for summary judgment under Tex. Labor Code § 417.004, asserting no written agreement for liability assumption existed. The trial court granted Martinez's summary judgment and denied Mullins' subsequent motions to vacate and amend. This appeal concerns whether the district court properly granted summary judgment, given the absence of a pre-accident written agreement where Martinez assumed Mullins' liability.

Workers' CompensationIndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeExpress Negligence RuleThird-Party LiabilityInsurance CertificateGross NegligenceEmployer Protection
References
32
Case No. ADJ6822519
Regular
Feb 16, 2010

RUBEN MARTINEZ vs. ALERT PLATING COMPANY, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the lower order was not final, as it did not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, affirming the applicant's right to seek treatment outside the Medical Provider Network at their own expense. The admissibility of reports from non-MPN physicians was not decided but noted as potentially admissible. This ruling upholds the applicant's statutory rights and defers determination of specific liabilities.

MPNPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJFinal OrderSubstantive RightLabor Code Section 4605Medical Provider NetworkAdmissibility of Medical ReportsQualified Medical Evaluator
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2013

Claim of Hunter v. Tops Market, Inc.

The case involves an appeal concerning the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant had an established workers' compensation claim for right carpal tunnel syndrome, with a later diagnosis of left carpal tunnel syndrome. Despite a 10% schedule loss of use for the right hand, the employer's request to transfer liability was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the case was never truly closed because issues regarding the left carpal tunnel syndrome remained unresolved, as evidenced by a doctor's report. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further compensation proceedings were still contemplated, thereby preventing the transfer of liability.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational DiseaseSchedule Loss of UseTransfer of LiabilityCase ClosureBoard Decision AffirmedAppellate DivisionNerve Conduction Study
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Thomas

This case centers on a dispute over workers' compensation benefits following the death of Oliver Thomas, an employee of Young Suderman, Inc., in 1929. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded compensation to Myrtle Kirtman, who claimed to be Oliver's common-law wife. Oliver's father, Saul Thomas, contested this award, asserting his right as the sole beneficiary and denying Myrtle's marital status. The district court in Galveston County, based on a jury finding that no common-law marriage existed, awarded compensation to Saul Thomas against the American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, which was the insurer. Both the insurance company and Myrtle Kirtman appealed the judgment, raising issues regarding the common-law marriage definition, lump-sum settlement calculations, and burden of proof. The appellate court reformed the awarded sum due to a remittitur by Saul Thomas and affirmed the judgment in his favor, while also overruling Myrtle Kirtman's motion for rehearing.

Employers' Liability ActCommon-Law MarriageBeneficiary DisputeIndustrial Accident BoardLump-Sum SettlementAppellate ReviewJury VerdictRemittiturDependency ClaimInsurance Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Co. v. Holmes

This is an appeal in a workmen's compensation case from a District Court judgment in Jefferson County, Texas. The appellant, Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, Ltd., appealed a judgment for the injured employee, Holmes, regarding the nature and extent of his injury and wage rate. The jury found Holmes suffered a 17.5% partial permanent loss of his right leg's use due to an injury in July 1952 while working for Pure Oil Company. The trial court set his wage rate at $90 per week, leading to a compensation award of $9.45 per week for 200 weeks, less $125 already paid. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, but reformed it to credit the appellant for the $125 already paid to the appellee.

Wage Rate CalculationPartial Permanent DisabilityLeg Injury CompensationInsurance Carrier AppealJudicial Notice of Employment ConditionsStatutory Wage Computation (Article 8309)Evidence SufficiencyMotion for Instructed VerdictCredit for Advance PaymentsAppellate Judgment Reformation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This proceeding addresses whether a corporate employer can be held directly liable for sexual harassment perpetrated by its highest managerial employee, even without proof of vicarious liability. The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) filed a petition seeking enforcement of a determination that the Father Belle Community Center was liable for sexual harassment by its Executive Director, Vito Caruso, against three complainants: Deborah King, Elizabeth Hurd, and Deborah Horvatits. The court affirmed the finding that the Center was directly liable for Caruso's quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, and for its Board of Directors' condonation and retaliatory discharge of complainants. The court also upheld the $60,000 awards to each complainant for mental anguish and humiliation.

Sexual HarassmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer LiabilityDirect LiabilityRetaliatory DischargeHuman Rights LawDiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCorporate Governance
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 11,339 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