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. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 89 Civ. 1655 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1990

Fenderson v. INDEP. FED. OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

Plaintiffs, a group of flight attendants including new hires and crossovers, filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the Independent Federation of Flight Attendants (IFFA), its officers, and Trans World Airlines (TWA). They alleged that amendments to IFFA's Constitution and Bylaws, specifically a one-year 'education and orientation period' and a $250 initiation/reinstatement fee, violated Section 2, Eleventh (a) of the Railway Labor Act by imposing conditions on membership not generally applicable to all members. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the one-year education and orientation period, finding it violated the RLA's requirement that membership be available on the same terms to all dues-paying employees. However, the court denied summary judgment concerning the $250 fee, concluding that it was uniformly applied and fell within the RLA's definition of permissible 'initiation fees' and 'reinstatement fees'.

Railway Labor ActUnion Security ClauseFlight AttendantsUnion Membership RightsInitiation FeesReinstatement FeesSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDiscriminationVoting Rights
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1998

Castro v. Wing

The petitioner sought review of a determination by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which upheld the Suffolk County Department of Social Services' decision to deny her application for public assistance and food stamp benefits. The denial was based on her failure to appear at a scheduled front end detection system (FEDS) interview, a requirement for eligibility. The petitioner argued she was misinformed by a case worker and did not see the notices. The court confirmed the determination, ruling that the FEDS review was an essential eligibility requirement and the petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for her absence. A dissenting judge contended that the respondents did not provide substantial evidence that the petitioner refused to attend the interview, and that the FEDS process, established for fraud prevention, should not inherently preclude benefit application processing.

Public Assistance DenialFood Stamp BenefitsEligibility RequirementsFEDS InterviewAdministrative Due ProcessAgency Determination ReviewGood CauseFraud PreventionSuffolk County DSSNew York Social Services
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1980

Kaminsky v. Brezenoff

The petitioner, an 83-year-old recipient of medical assistance, sought reimbursement for home attendant services paid for by her daughter and the Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (JASA). The New York City Department of Social Services denied the application due to a lack of prior approval and identifying information for the attendants, a decision affirmed by the New York State Department of Social Services and Special Term. The Appellate Division reversed this determination, granting the petition and remanding the matter for further proceedings. The court ruled that agency regulations should not be applied with such rigidity as to deny eligible persons intended medical assistance. It emphasized the need to consider whether the failure to provide information was a willful refusal or a misunderstanding, and whether the Agency had fulfilled its mandated obligation to assist applicants in securing necessary information.

home attendant servicesmedical assistancereimbursementsocial servicesagency determinationadministrative reviewCPLR Article 78eligibilityprior authorizationNew York regulations
References
6
Case No. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

DEPT. OF ASSISTIVE & REHAB. SERV. v. Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices by his employer to the State Auditor's Office. He claimed retaliation after his superiors learned of his report, leading to negative performance appraisals and denied promotions and merit pay increases despite an exemplary 24-year work record. Howard sued the Department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including the report's good faith, the appropriateness of the authority, and causation. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor's OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialCausationGood Faith ReportEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager with the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported several alleged legal violations by his employer to the State Auditor’s Office. Howard subsequently experienced retaliation, including denial of promotions and merit pay increases, which he attributed to his whistleblowing activities. He successfully sued the department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages. The Department appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including good faith reporting, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationPerformance EvaluationEmployment DiscriminationState Auditor's OfficeGood Faith ReportCausal LinkEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America

Chief Justice Bond dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed a trial court's judgment. The case involves L. R. Smith, who was suspended and fined by Local Union No. 47 for drunkenness and misconduct. Smith sued the International Printing Pressman & Assistants Union of North America, alleging tortious acts. The dissent argues that the International Union should not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the local union's actions, which were outside its by-laws and not authorized or ratified by the International. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Smith's tort claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitation. The dissent concludes that the trial court's judgment, which found no agency and applied the statute of limitation, should have been affirmed.

Agency LawRespondeat SuperiorLabor UnionsInternal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsTort ActionBreach of ContractUnion DisciplineDissenting OpinionLocal Union Autonomy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Independent Union of Flight Attendants (IUFA) filed an action against Pan American World Airways, Inc. (Pan Am) under the Railway Labor Act, seeking a preliminary injunction to enforce an April 1, 1985 agreement or, alternatively, to maintain the status quo. A key dispute arose over 'Item 7' of the agreement, regarding pending lawsuits and grievances, with the union claiming its exclusion and Pan Am insisting on its inclusion. The National Mediation Board (NMB) is currently reviewing this interpretive dispute. The court denied the preliminary injunction, reasoning that Pan Am was legally entitled to engage in self-help after exhausting statutory procedures, and that the union failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The balance of hardships was found to favor Pan Am, and the action was stayed pending the NMB's definitive ruling.

Railway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSelf-HelpStatus QuoNational Mediation BoardIrreparable HarmBalance of HardshipsLabor DisputeUnion Rights
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,445 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