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

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc.

Justice Wilson dissents from the majority's decision on a motion for rehearing, arguing that the majority improperly considered non-evidence and engaged in speculation. The dissent contends that Lennie Davis's controverting affidavit by Dr. Bergeron, which stated a 17% impairment rating compared to the defendants' 0%, was conclusory and insufficient to establish bad faith by Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc., Dr. DeFrancesco, and Dr. Dozier. Justice Wilson believes that the affidavit failed to meet the objective 'no reasonable doctor' standard for controverting good faith, and therefore, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants should have been affirmed based on official immunity.

Summary JudgmentOfficial ImmunityGood FaithImpairment RatingMedical AffidavitConclusory StatementsTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionPermanent Disability
References
7
Case No. 01-23-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP

This case addresses whether an indemnitee can recover from its indemnitor the portion of a settlement attributable to other defendants under a comparative indemnity scheme, even if the indemnitee was also found negligent. Industrial Specialists, LLC (Appellant) was sued by Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP (Appellees) for breach of a contractual indemnity agreement. A fire at a refinery injured employees, leading to a $104 million settlement by Marathon and other contractors, where Marathon paid $86 million. The jury found Marathon 38% negligent and Industrial 17% negligent, among others. The core issue is the enforceability of the indemnity provision under the express negligence doctrine, specifically concerning comparative indemnity. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the indemnity provision failed to expressly provide for comparative indemnity, thus rendering it unenforceable as a matter of law.

Contractual IndemnityExpress Negligence DoctrineComparative IndemnityOil and Gas IndustryRefinery FirePersonal Injury ClaimsSettlement AgreementsBreach of ContractTexas LawAppellate Court Decision
References
17
Case No. 2015-03-0285
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2016

Long, Joann v. Southeast Eye Specialists

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Joann Long's request for medical and temporary disability benefits after a workplace fall. Ms. Long, employed by SouthEast Eye Specialists, sustained a severe hamstring injury. She initially received treatment from Dr. Hovis, the authorized treating physician, who did not recommend surgery. Ms. Long sought a second opinion and, dissatisfied with Dr. Hovis's care, pursued unauthorized surgery with Dr. Damon Petty. SouthEast Eye Specialists subsequently suspended her benefits, citing her non-compliance with the authorized physician. The Court found insufficient evidence to determine if Dr. Hovis's treatment was inappropriate, and thus, Ms. Long failed to justify seeking unauthorized medical care. Consequently, the Court denied her requests for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred with Dr. Petty and for temporary total disability benefits. Dr. Hovis is to remain the authorized treating physician, or SES must provide a new panel.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentAuthorized Treating PhysicianPanel of PhysiciansBurden of ProofConflicting Medical OpinionsHamstring Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1990

Narine v. Handler

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. 2022-08-1069
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2025

Morris, Damon Curry v. Select Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee claimed he suffered arm and shoulder injuries due to an alleged workplace assault committed by his supervisor. The employer denied the assault occurred and denied the employee sustained any work-related injuries. Pursuant to a prior expedited hearing order, the employer provided a panel of physicians and authorized limited medical treatment. Thereafter, an MRI revealed a small partial tear in the left rotator cuff. The employer declined to approve additional treatment recommended by the authorized physician and declined to approve the authorized physician’s referral to a specialist. As a result, the employee requested another expedited hearing, after which the trial court ordered the employer to authorize the referral to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of the left shoulder despite acknowledging the lack of any expert medical evidence indicating that the employee’s left shoulder condition was primarily caused by the alleged workplace assault. Upon careful consideration of the record, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case.

Workplace InjuryShoulder InjuryRotator CuffMedical CausationExpedited HearingEmployer LiabilityEmployee Burden of ProofInterlocutory AppealRemandSubsequent Injury Fund
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Saturn Corp.

Sharon Walker, an employee of Saturn Corporation, sought a full court review after a Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel’s decision reduced her disability award. Walker suffered from tenosynovitis in both wrists and ulnar nerve entrapment in her left elbow due to repetitive work, requiring surgeries and leading to permanent restrictions. While medical experts provided anatomical impairment ratings, a vocational specialist assessed a 97% occupational disability given Walker’s limited skills and local job market opportunities. The court reversed the Panel's decision, affirming the trial court's original finding of an eighty-five percent permanent partial disability to both arms, emphasizing that vocational impairment is not solely dependent on anatomical impairment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTenosynovitisDe Quervain's SyndromeUlnar Nerve EntrapmentVocational DisabilityAnatomical ImpairmentOccupational DisabilityRepetitive Strain InjurySurgery
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2007

Johnson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists

This case involves a lawsuit by Joél Johnson against RGIS Inventory Specialists alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding unpaid overtime and minimum wages. Johnson, an auditor, claimed she was not compensated for travel time, 'wait time' (arriving early at meet sites or inventories, and waiting for company transportation), and time spent donning and doffing equipment. RGIS sought summary judgment, arguing these activities were non-compensable preliminary or postliminary activities or de minimis. The court granted summary judgment in part, denying claims related to general travel time, wait time incidental to company transportation, and doffing. However, it denied summary judgment for claims concerning work performed while traveling after March 2004, wait time prior to an inventory, and donning equipment, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAWagesOvertimeMinimum WageTravel TimeWait TimeDonning and DoffingSummary JudgmentEmployment Law
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc.

This case addresses whether a drug testing laboratory can be held liable in tort to a non-contracting subject for negligent testing. The plaintiff, while on probation in Orange County, submitted an oral fluid sample that Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., falsely reported as positive for marijuana. The lab allegedly used a lower cutoff level than recommended and failed to perform a confirmatory GC/MS test, leading to an extension of the plaintiff's probation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, asserting that a duty of reasonable care exists due to the severe consequences of inaccurate drug test results on individuals' lives and the lack of market incentives for testing accuracy. The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence.

Drug TestingNegligenceTort LiabilityForensic ToxicologyPrivity of ContractDuty of CareProbation ViolationFalse PositiveLaboratory StandardsCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
101
Showing 1-10 of 985 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