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

Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. 07-09-00163-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2010

Potter County, Texas as Plan Administrator for the Health Benefits Plan for the Employees of Potter County, Texas v. Ronda Tuckness and Michael Tuckness

Potter County, acting as the plan administrator for its employee health benefits plan, appealed an order that denied its plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit was filed by Ronda and Michael Tuckness, seeking health care benefits after the County denied Michael Tuckness's claim for back surgery costs due to an occupational injury exclusion. The County contended it was immune from suit. The appellate court found that the County's governmental immunity had not been waived by the requests for declaratory relief, the terms of the health plan contract, or the County's conduct. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the Tucknesses' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityImmunity WaiverDeclaratory JudgmentContract LawHealth BenefitsPlan AdministratorOccupational Sickness/InjuryJurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2011

County of Rockland v. Civil Service Employee Ass'n

The County of Rockland initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration sought by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. The grievances arose from the County's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement by assigning per diem employees instead of regular full- and part-time staff. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, permanently staying the arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievances and determined that the parties' collective bargaining agreement covered the specific dispute. Furthermore, the issue of the timeliness of the arbitration demands was deemed to be a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementCPLR article 75grievancepublic sectorPERBCivil Service Lawemployer practicesappellate reviewlabour law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Westchester v. Arfmann

The case concerns public employees of the Westchester County Department of Public Welfare who engaged in a strike starting March 1, 1967, resulting in a motion for a temporary injunction by the County of Westchester. The employees, including the Westchester Welfare Workers Association, picketed county offices due to reported issues like case overloads and poor working conditions. While defendants claimed illness and presented testimony from a psychiatrist regarding 'adult situational stress reactions,' the court found that the mass absence constituted a strike interfering with welfare services. The court ruled that Section 807 of the Labor Law, which forbids injunctions in labor disputes, does not apply to public employees. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction.

Public Sector StrikeTemporary InjunctionLabor DisputeCivil Service LawEmployee ProtestWestchester CountyWelfare DepartmentIllegal StrikePicket LinesGovernment Employees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Maverick v. Texas Ass'n of Counties Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund

The County of Maverick (County) appealed a trial court's judgment that Nutmeg Insurance Company (Nutmeg) and the Texas Association of Counties Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund) did not owe the County a duty to defend or indemnify in a wrongful discharge lawsuit. Four former employees had sued the County after being terminated for filing workers' compensation claims. Both Nutmeg and the Fund refused to defend the County, which subsequently lost the wrongful discharge suit and was ordered to pay damages and reinstate employees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither Nutmeg's public entity liability policy nor the Fund's interlocal agreement covered damages for wrongful discharge, and upheld the award of attorneys' fees to Nutmeg and the Fund.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInterlocal AgreementPublic Entity LiabilityTexas LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 01-24-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Harris County, Texas, Harris County Commissioners Court, Lina Hidalgo and Edward Gonzalez v. Jane Doe

Appellee Jane Doe, an employee at the Harris County Jail, filed suit against appellants Harris County, Harris County Commissioners Court, Lina Hidalgo (in her official capacity), and Edward Gonzalez (in his official capacity) under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). Doe alleged sexual assault by an inmate due to understaffing at the jail. Appellants responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's order, finding that the TTCA's election of remedies provision barred the suit against the individual employees (Hidalgo and Gonzalez) and that immunity was not waived for Harris County and the Commissioners Court because the jail premises merely provided the backdrop for the assault, not its cause. The court rendered a judgment of dismissal of appellee's claims.

Texas Court of AppealsGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPremises LiabilitySexual AssaultJail ConditionsUnderstaffingElection of RemediesOfficial Capacity
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 14,160 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