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. A-16-CA-060-SS
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Sullivan

This case addresses whether the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts provisions of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) that regulate the reimbursement rates for air ambulance services. Plaintiff Air Evac EMS, Inc. argued that the TWCA's restrictions on its charges for services to workers' compensation patients are preempted by the ADA. The State Defendants (Texas Commissioner of Insurance and Texas Commissioner of Workers' Compensation) and Intervenor Defendants (multiple workers' compensation insurers) contended against preemption, citing a presumption against federal interference with state police powers and the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court found that the ADA's preemption provision, which broadly prohibits state laws related to an air carrier's prices, routes, or services, applies to the TWCA's compensation scheme for air ambulance providers. Furthermore, the court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not shield the TWCA provisions because they regulate the 'business of insurance companies' rather than the 'business of insurance.' As a result, the court granted Air Evac's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motions, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the State Defendants from enforcing the challenged TWCA provisions against Air Evac.

Airline Deregulation ActTexas Workers' Compensation ActFederal PreemptionAir Ambulance ServicesPrice RegulationMcCarran-Ferguson ActSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
49
Case No. M1999-00509-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Speakman v. Ada Ferrell Garden Apts.

Ollie Speakman, Jr., a maintenance supervisor for Ada Ferrell Garden Apartments, appealed the summary judgment granted to his employer by the Circuit Court for Coffee County. Speakman alleged he was terminated in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim after sustaining a back injury in November 1992. The Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment de novo, considering whether a factual dispute existed, if it was material, and if it created a genuine issue for trial. The court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment, finding no direct or compelling circumstantial evidence of causation to support Speakman's retaliatory discharge claim, noting that subjective beliefs alone do not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment-at-WillCausationMaterial FactAppellate ReviewTennessee LawMaintenance SupervisorBack Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Paxton

The City of Austin sued the State of Texas (Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas Workforce Commission) to enjoin Texas Local Government Code § 250.007(c). This state law allows landlords to refuse tenants using federal housing vouchers, which the City argues is preempted by federal law due to its ordinance prohibiting such discrimination. The State filed a motion to dismiss, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the City's standing and ruling the suit not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. However, the Court granted dismissal for the City's conflict preemption and Section 3617 express preemption claims, but denied dismissal for the Section 3615 express preemption claim, concluding the City adequately pleaded a disparate impact claim.

PreemptionFederal Housing Choice Voucher ProgramTexas Local Government CodeFair Housing ActEleventh AmendmentStandingMotion to DismissDisparate ImpactCity OrdinanceState Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Case No. ADA
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

DANIEL CUEVAS vs. OLTMAN'S CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in Liquidation, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC. (Servicing Facility)

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant CIGA regarding an award of psychiatric treatment for an industrial ankle injury. The applicant, Daniel Cuevas, passed away from cancer, rendering the issue of his entitlement to further medical treatment moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition and rescinded the original award. The Board substituted a new finding stating that the applicant's death mooted the treatment issue.

CIGAliquidationreconsiderationmootpsychiatric treatmentcortisone injectionindustrial ankle injurymedical treatment awardrescindsubstituted
References
0
Case No. ADJ2446515 (VNO 0554414) ADJ3948039 (VNO 0554416) ADJ3253938 (VNO 0554418)
Regular
May 03, 2010

ADA GONZALEZ vs. VAN NUYS SHEET METAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing applicant Ada Gonzalez's claims. The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. However, the WCJ acknowledged that a change of address for the applicant's attorney was not updated in the system, and notices were sent to the wrong address. Consequently, the Board found the dismissal improper due to a due process violation and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissDue ProcessEAMS systemChange of AddressService of ProcessRescinded OrderTrial Level Proceedings
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. City of New York

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries while working on a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting the case did not fall under admiralty jurisdiction. On appeal, the higher court reversed this finding, concluding that a maritime nexus and situs existed, thus invoking substantive maritime law. This preemption by federal maritime law rendered the strict liability provisions of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on these labor laws, while affirming the denial of dismissal for claims under common law negligence and Labor Law § 200.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawLabor LawPreemptionPersonal InjuryDry DockSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtNew YorkNegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romney v. Lin

This opinion addresses an action to collect unpaid contributions owed by Goodee Fashions, Inc. to four union benefit funds, totaling $70,647.17. After an initial judgment against Goodee Fashions proved uncollectible, the plaintiff, representing the union benefit funds, sued Alan Lin, a principal shareholder, under New York Bus. Corp. Law § 630. This state law holds the ten largest shareholders jointly and severally liable for debts to employees, including benefit funds. Defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing preemption by ERISA and LMRA. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 630 is preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the claim for $70,647.17 was dismissed, except for a $598.27 portion related to the Sportswear Industry Trust Fund, which was deemed not an ERISA fund.

ERISA PreemptionLMRAShareholder LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsEmployee Benefit PlansCollective BargainingState Law PreemptionFederal JurisdictionCorporate DebtDismissal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlisle v. Philip Morris, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act preempts state common-law tort claims for smoking-related injuries and deaths. Plaintiffs, including individual smokers and widows of deceased smokers, alleged various tort claims like failure to warn, design defects, misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy against cigarette manufacturers. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants based on preemption. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the Labeling Act does not clearly or unambiguously intend to preempt such common-law claims. The court highlighted the speculative nature of the conflict, the Act's primary goal of public health information, the lack of alternative remedies, and legislative history.

PreemptionFederal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising ActCommon-Law TortSmoking InjuriesProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnDesign DefectsMisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyState Law
References
83
Case No. 07-02-0206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2003

Derral Noble v. Southwestern Public Service Company

Derral Noble appealed a summary judgment ruling against his disability discrimination claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) against Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS). Noble, an SPS employee, sustained an on-the-job knee injury in 1991 and later filed discrimination charges with the EEOC. His initial lawsuit included claims under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, but not the ADA. After an appeal that remanded his 8307c claim, Noble amended his petition in 2000 to include the ADA claim. SPS sought summary judgment and severance, arguing the ADA claim was time-barred or subject to res judicata. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the ADA claim was not timely filed and the "relation-back" doctrine did not apply.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans With Disabilities ActSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSeverance of ClaimsRelation-Back DoctrineTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Labor Code
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 573 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