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

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. M2014-01073-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2015

Administrative Management Resources, LLC v. James G. Neeley

Administrative Management Resources, LLC (AMR) appealed a decision affirming that it engaged in SUTA dumping by illegally transferring employees between commonly owned entities to obtain lower unemployment insurance premium rates. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, represented by James G. Neeley, had assessed significant penalties against AMR. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the chancery court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Department's determination that AMR knowingly violated the Tennessee Employment Security Law. The court also rejected AMR's arguments regarding the Department's authority to aggregate accounts and its due process claims concerning notice and procedural fairness during the administrative hearing.

SUTA dumpingunemployment insurancepremium rate manipulationemployee transfersTennessee Employment Security Lawadministrative decision reviewappellate affirmationcommon ownershipdue processstatutory violation
References
22
Case No. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Case No. 03-15-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. And Audi of America, Inc. v. John Walker III, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board The Honorable Michael J. O'Malley, the Honorable Penny A. Wilkov, in Their Official Capacities as Administrative Law Judges for the State Office

This case involves an appeal filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc. (Appellants) against John Walker III, Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and Administrative Law Judges Michael J. O'Malley and Penny A. Wilkov (Appellees). Appellants sought injunctive relief in district court to prevent Appellees from proceeding with an allegedly ultra vires remand of an administrative contested case after a Proposal for Decision (PFD) had been issued. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants argue that Appellees' actions, including ordering the remand and reopening evidence, exceeded their statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and Texas Occupations Code, making governmental immunity inapplicable and exhaustion of remedies unnecessary.

Administrative LawUltra Vires ActsGovernmental ImmunityExhaustion of RemediesJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityState Office of Administrative HearingsRemandContested CasesStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallishaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff William Gallishaw sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously found Plaintiff not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court determined that the ALJ erred by improperly discounting the opinions of Plaintiff's treating and examining physicians (Dr. Nangia, Dr. Thukral, Dr. Fkiaras) and his credibility, while unduly relying on a non-examining physician (Dr. Fuchs). The Court found the ALJ's residual functional capacity (RFC) determination and step-five findings regarding available jobs to be unsupported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remanded the case for a determination of benefits, concluding there was persuasive proof of disability.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleMedical evidenceCredibility assessmentLumbar spine myofascitisChronic synovitisLeft knee derangement
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Briones

Maria M. Briones and 213 other claimants appealed an administrative determination by the Texas Employment Commission, which had awarded them reduced unemployment benefits due to holiday pay received from their employer, Friedrich Refrigerators, Inc. The trial court initially set aside the Commission's decision, granting full benefits to the claimants. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming the Texas Employment Commission's original decision. The central issue was whether holiday pay constituted "wages" under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act and if it should be attributed to the week the holiday occurred, thereby leading to partial unemployment benefits. The court concluded that holiday pay was indeed wages and attributable to the holiday week, classifying claimants as partially unemployed.

Unemployment benefitsHoliday payWagesStatutory interpretationAdministrative appealPartial unemploymentCollective bargaining agreementEmployer shutdownLabor lawAppellate review
References
8
Case No. Z docket
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2007

Matter of Administration for Children's Servs. v. Silvia S.

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a motion in Family Court, Queens County, seeking an order to compel the respondent, Silvia S., to produce her psychological, psychiatric, and medical records. ACS argued that these records were necessary to investigate allegations of child neglect involving Silvia S. and her child, Daniel C., following incidents related to her seizure disorder, homelessness, and postpartum depression. The court, presided over by Judge Edwina G. Richardson-Mendelson, denied the motion. The judge found that ACS had not demonstrated a meritorious cause of action for neglect and was improperly seeking pre-petition disclosure to determine if a cause of action existed. The court also emphasized the need for confidentiality under HIPAA and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13, concluding that the interest of justice did not outweigh the respondent's need for privacy given the lack of a stated cause of action and no harm to the child.

Child NeglectMedical Records DisclosurePsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPre-Petition DisclosureCPLR 3102(c)Family Court Act § 1038(d)HIPAAMental Hygiene Law § 33.13Confidentiality
References
9
Case No. 08-23-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2025

New Mission Home Care, LLC v. Tony Lawrence Read, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of George Read, and Bertha Acosta, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Teresa Acosta Read

New Mission Home Care, LLC appealed a $13 million jury verdict in a car-train collision case. The appellate court identified jury charge error regarding the definition of "course and scope" of employment, which was crucial for assessing New Mission's vicarious liability. Upon review, the court found legally insufficient evidence to support the appellees' vicarious liability claim based on the corrected course-and-scope definition. Furthermore, the court determined there was also legally insufficient evidence to sustain the direct liability claims, including negligent hiring, retaining, training, and supervision, against New Mission. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of New Mission.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent TrainingNegligent SupervisionJury Charge ErrorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCar-Train Collision
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 15,863 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