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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. E2006-00087-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2006

C.S.C. v. Knox County Board of Education

In this class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs, C.S.C. et al., alleged that the defendants, the Knox County Board of Education and its superintendent, violated state statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions. These alleged violations pertained to the design and implementation of an evening alternative education program for students who were expelled or suspended. The trial court rejected the plaintiffs' challenges, leading to this appeal. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville, affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the program did not violate applicable laws regarding curriculum, support services, placement procedures, or transportation. The court further determined that the defendants' policies for removing students from the program adhered to due process rights.

Alternative Education ProgramSchool SuspensionSchool ExpulsionDue ProcessEqual ProtectionClass Action LawsuitEducation LawStudent RightsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Regulations
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banton v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after the claimant was injured. Counsel sought a change of venue, citing a purported "Board Rule 10.01 (1) (c)" which the Workers’ Compensation Board found to be non-existent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request and assessed penalties against counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) and (ii). On administrative appeal, the Board rescinded the penalty under § 114-a (3) (i) but increased the penalty under § 114-a (3) (ii) due to the appeal lacking reasonable basis. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that counsel had been previously warned about citing the inaccurate "Board Rule" and that clarification on venue application rules was available before the administrative appeal was filed.

Attorney MisconductVenue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative AppealSubstantial EvidenceLegal TreatiseProcedural MotionUnreasonable GroundsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2005

In re the Claim of Burrows

This case addresses an appeal by the City of Newburgh against a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that found a former probationary police officer eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The City argued that General Municipal Law § 207-c payments should reduce unemployment benefits under Labor Law § 591 (5) and that the claimant was not totally unemployed while receiving these payments. The court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits are distinct from Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) for benefit reduction. Additionally, the court ruled that these payments do not constitute employment, thus affirming the claimant's status as totally unemployed. The court also rejected the City's claim that the termination was voluntary or provoked.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law 207-cLabor Law 591(5)Workers' Compensation Law 15(6)Police OfficerProbationary EmploymentDisability PaymentsTotal UnemploymentStatutory ConstructionAppeal Board Decision
References
6
Case No. ADJ2483385 (MON 0345351)
Regular
Aug 02, 2011

DAVID VELASQUEZ vs. PACIFIC ENERGY CONSTRUCTION CORP., AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and removed the case to itself after the WCJ issued a Findings and Award for applicant's industrial injury including sleep disorder. Subsequently, the parties reached a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement while the defendant's reconsideration petition was pending. The WCJ improperly approved the C&R after her jurisdiction had expired according to Appeals Board rules. The Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award and WCJ orders, returning the case to the trial level for proceedings on the C&R, and specifically rescinded the WCJ's C&R approval order due to lack of jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWCJ jurisdictionReport and RecommendationIndustrial InjurySleep DisorderNeurological SystemInternal System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seo v. UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc.

The claimant, a limousine driver for UTOG 2-Way Radio, Inc., was injured in an automobile accident while driving home from work. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied benefits, ruling the injuries did not arise from employment. Eagle Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which initially reversed the WCLJ, deeming the claimant an 'outside worker' eligible for 'portal to portal' coverage. UTOG appealed this reversal, but the full Board rescinded the decision and referred it back. Upon reconsideration, the Board panel determined that Eagle lacked standing as it was not a party in interest under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and affirmed the WCLJ's denial of benefits. Eagle then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Board's decision, citing prior cases, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Automobile AccidentLimousine DriverWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStanding to AppealNo-Fault Insurance CarrierOutside WorkerPortal to Portal CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard ReconsiderationRemittal
References
2
Case No. 03-12-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2014

Dr. Eric A. VanderWerff, D.C. v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners

Dr. Eric A. VanderWerff, D.C. appealed a trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing his lawsuit against the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The Board had previously issued an order finding Dr. VanderWerff violated the Chiropractic Act by engaging in grossly unprofessional conduct and assessed a $1,500 penalty. His motion for rehearing to the Board was untimely, making the Board's order final. Dr. VanderWerff then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the Board's interpretation and application of certain statutes and regulations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act waived the Board's sovereign immunity, and that the claims did not present a justiciable controversy or fall under the collateral-attack exception.

Appellate LawAdministrative LawSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActInjunctive ReliefChiropractic ActProfessional MisconductContested CaseAdministrative Remedies
References
12
Case No. M2010-01473-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2011

Roger William Byrd, D.C. v. Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners

This case involves disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Roger William Byrd, a chiropractor, by the Tennessee Board of Chiropractic Examiners. The allegations stemmed from a 2000 incident of telephonic solicitation of a car accident victim within two days of her accident, violating the Board's rules. Later, additional allegations were added concerning Dr. Byrd's use of a Florida office to telemarket Tennessee accident victims. Dr. Byrd admitted telemarketing was conducted but argued a corporation, Memphis Accident and Injury Center (MAIC), was responsible, not himself. The Board found Dr. Byrd guilty of multiple violations and revoked his chiropractic license. The chancery court affirmed this decision, and the Court of Appeals of Tennessee also affirmed, concluding that substantial and material evidence supported the Board's findings that Dr. Byrd operated and controlled MAIC's telemarketing activities.

Chiropractic DisciplineTelemarketing ViolationsProfessional EthicsLicense RevocationAdministrative Law JudgeChancery Court ReviewCorporate Veil PiercingAgency InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceDue Process
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

In re the Claim of Culver

The claimant, a housekeeper at a residential apartment complex, was terminated after her supervisor received information that she was playing video games during working hours. Her initial application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied for misconduct, a determination upheld by an Administrative Law Judge. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, ruling that the claimant was entitled to benefits. The employer appealed the Board's ruling. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the question of disqualifying misconduct is a factual one for the Board to resolve and that substantial evidence supported the Board's choice to credit the claimant's testimony over the employer's witnesses.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductCredibilityAdministrative LawAppealTerminationHousekeeperVideo GamesWorking HoursSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 42,352 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