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

Davis v. Reagan

This consolidated appeal addresses whether permanent total disability can be awarded in Tennessee when an anatomical disability rating is below 16.7 percent. The Supreme Court reconciles conflicting panel decisions, specifically overruling Seiber v. Greenbrier Industries, Inc. The court holds that the limitations outlined in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241, which apply to permanent partial disability awards, do not extend to permanent total disability claims. The decision affirms the trial courts' judgments, allowing individuals like Vernon Ray Davis and Bessie Lou Rayfield to receive permanent total disability benefits despite having anatomical impairment ratings under 16.7 percent.

Permanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAnatomical Impairment RatingStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawConsolidated AppealVocational DisabilityEmployee RetentionLegislative Intent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

Plaintiff Terry Smith, a former Diabetes Sales Specialist for Bayer Corporation, filed an action under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits, claiming wrongful denial due to psychiatric impairments including depression, panic disorder, and bi-polar disorder. The Plan administrator, Bayer, upheld the denial based on reviews by non-examining physicians. However, Smith's treating psychiatrists, Dr. LeBuffe and Dr. McCool, consistently found him disabled. The court found the Plan's reliance on non-examining doctors, who 'cherry-picked' medical records and distorted findings, to be arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted Smith's motion for benefits, denying Bayer's, and also awarded partial disability benefits, ruling that Smith's failure to seek rehabilitation approval was excused by the prior wrongful denial.

ERISALong-term disabilityDisability benefits denialPsychiatric impairmentDepressionPanic disorderBi-polar disorderAttention Deficit Disorder (ADD)Treating physician ruleArbitrary and capricious standard
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corcoran v. Foster Auto GMC, Inc.

Christopher J. Corcoran, an automobile mechanic, suffered a left inguinal hernia in 1985 while working for Foster Auto GMC, Inc. He underwent surgery and returned to work with permanent lifting restrictions, subsequently being terminated. The trial court dismissed his workers' compensation claim, finding insufficient proof of permanent disability due to the physician's inability to provide an anatomical disability rating. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the failure of a medical expert to attribute a percentage of anatomical disability does not justify denying compensation if other evidence demonstrates an award is appropriate. The court emphasized that vocational disability, not anatomical disability, is the ultimate issue, and the trial court must determine the extent of permanent partial vocational disability based on all evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityVocational DisabilityHernia InjuryMedical EvidenceAnatomical ImpairmentEarning CapacityRemandStandard of ReviewTennessee Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Case No. 03-99-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Coalition of Texans With Disabilities v. Tommy v. Smith, Former Commissioner of Licensing and Regulation for Department of Licensing and Regulation, in His Official Capacity Rachelle A. Martin, Executive Director of TDLR And Members of the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation

The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities challenged the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation's (TDLR) interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Architectural Barriers Act. The dispute centered on whether the Act's exemption for religious facilities applied to entire buildings or only to specific areas used for religious rituals. The district court sided with the TDLR, broadly exempting entire religious buildings. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the Department's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the Act's purpose of eliminating barriers for disabled persons. The appellate court clarified that the exemption only applies to places within a religious building used primarily for rituals, not the entire structure, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

AccessibilityDisability RightsReligious ExemptionsArchitectural Barriers ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Fagg v. Hutch Manufacturing Co.

This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by Hutch Manufacturing Company and its insurance carrier concerning an employee, Mrs. Fagg, who sustained a compensable injury. The appeal raised issues regarding the duration of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, the extent of permanent partial disability (PPD), a 6% penalty for unpaid installments, and medical expenses. The Court dismissed a preliminary appeal as interlocutory. It found the trial court erred in determining the termination date of TTD, concluding that Mrs. Fagg's TTD benefits should cease on October 9, 1984, the latest date for maximum medical recovery according to Dr. Coughlin's evaluations. The Court affirmed the trial court's award of 65% PPD to the body as a whole, emphasizing the consideration of non-medical factors in assessing disability. Furthermore, the Court upheld the 6% penalty on unpaid compensation installments due to the employer's demonstrated bad faith. The case was remanded for a more explicit allocation of medical expenses.

Temporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingJudicial ReviewRemandPenalty for Non-PaymentMedical EvidenceObjective SymptomsSubjective ComplaintsWorkers' Compensation Appeal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 9,006 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