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. 14-05-00831-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2006

Joseph Earl Bias v. State

Joseph Earl Bias appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, asserting errors in the trial court's granting of the State's challenges for cause to two venirepersons and factual insufficiency of the evidence. The case originated from an incident where Bias allegedly pulled a gun and fired shots in a shoe store. The jury found Bias guilty, assessing a twenty-year confinement. The appellate court found the evidence factually sufficient, citing positive identification of Bias by the complainant and corroborating testimony. The court also determined that any error in excusing venirepersons did not deprive Bias of a lawfully constituted jury, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Aggravated AssaultFactual SufficiencyEvidentiary ReviewVoir DireJury SelectionChallenges for CauseCredibility of WitnessesCriminal AppealTexas LawCourt of Appeals
References
10
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

McCarver v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania

This workers' compensation case before the Tennessee Supreme Court centered on two critical issues: the constitutionality of a state statute granting jurisdiction to the General Sessions Court for Warren County in workers' compensation matters, and the vocational disability award for the claimant. The defendants, Carrier Corporation and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, challenged the jurisdiction of the General Sessions Court for Warren County, arguing that Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-15-5004(c) violated article XI, section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding a rational basis for the statute and thus upholding the lower court's jurisdiction. Additionally, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's award of 88.2% permanent partial disability to the claimant, Betty Sue McCarver, whose bilateral shoulder injuries from her employment with Carrier Corporation led to a finding of significant vocational disability supported by medical and vocational expert testimony.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionConstitutional LawTennessee Constitution Article XI Section 8General Sessions CourtWarren CountySubject Matter JurisdictionDisability AwardShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lahm v. Bloomberg

The petitioner, a former New York City police officer named Lahm, sought an accident disability retirement (ADR) due to stage III squamous cell carcinoma, claiming it was environmentally induced by his prolonged exposure to toxic debris at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001. The Police Department and the Medical Board denied his request for a line-of-duty designation and ADR, asserting no causal relationship, and instead granted him an ordinary disability retirement. The Board of Trustees subsequently denied the ADR application via a tie vote. The court found that the Medical Board failed to consider whether the petitioner's pre-existing condition was aggravated by the WTC exposure. Concluding that the Board of Trustees' denial lacked a rational basis, and noting that the record contained only medical opinions supporting the aggravation claim, the court ruled as a matter of law that the petitioner's cancer was exacerbated by the service-connected September 11, 2001 injury. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's application, annulled the Board of Trustees' determination, and remanded the matter for recomputation of his retirement allowance with an accident disability retirement.

WTC ExposureCancer AggravationAccident Disability RetirementOrdinary Disability RetirementPolice Pension FundLine-of-Duty InjuryCausation StandardMedical BoardTie Vote AnnulmentExacerbation of Pre-existing Condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mearns v. Sunoco, Inc.

Claimant, an assistant manager at a convenience store, suffered severe psychological injuries including panic attacks and nightmares after being falsely accused and physically accosted by a police officer following a store break-in. She subsequently ceased working and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially ruled, and the Workers’ Compensation Board later upheld, that she had sustained a permanent total disability. Despite some conflicting medical opinions regarding the severity of her disability, the Board was found to have properly resolved the evidence in favor of the claimant. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no basis to disturb the finding of permanent total disability.

permanent total disabilitypsychological traumaworkers' compensation appealmedical expert testimonyconflicting medical evidencepolice misconductworkplace incidentmental healthadministrative lawjudicial review
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,476 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