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

Watson v. Cencom Cable Income Partners

The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Cencom Cable Income Partners d/b/a Charter Communications, in a case brought by Rex M. Watson. Watson alleged discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim, due to his termination stemming from carpal tunnel syndrome. The court found that Watson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, as he could not demonstrate that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity. Specifically, the court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome alone was insufficient to prove disability under the ADA's definition. Consequently, the federal ADA claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, as the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTennessee Human Rights ActSubstantially LimitsMajor Life ActivityPrima Facie CaseRepetitive Motion Injury
References
15
Case No. 03-18-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Low Income Consumers, Mary Wilson and Hipolita Lutz v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a direct appeal challenging amendments to Rules 25.478 and 25.480 adopted by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of Texas. The appellants, "Low Income Consumers," Mary Wilson, and Hipolita Lutz, along with the intervenor City of Houston, argued that the PUC failed to comply with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and misconstrued relevant statutes. They specifically contested the repeal of the split-deposit provision in former Rule 25.478(e)(3) and amendments to Rule 25.480 concerning late fees and deferred payment plans, asserting these were essential customer protections rather than benefits tied to the expired System Benefit Fund (SBF). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order, concluding that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and adhered to the APA's notice and reasoned justification requirements. The court found that the contested provisions were not mandated protections under other sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA).

Public Utility CommissionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)System Benefit Fund (SBF)RulemakingCustomer ProtectionsLow-income customersSplit-deposit provisionDeferred payment plansLate-fee waiverStatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of State of the Pennsylvania v. Moore

This appeal addresses whether a worker's compensation carrier is entitled to a proportionate reduction in supplemental income benefits (SIBs) equal to the percentage of reduction for impairment income benefits (IIBs) for a prior compensable injury under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant, Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, sought an 11/17ths reduction in Appellee John H. Moore's SIBs, matching the reduction applied to his IIBs for a previous back injury. A hearing officer granted the IIB reduction but denied the SIB reduction. The trial court upheld this decision. The appellate court reversed, holding that Texas Labor Code § 408.084 is unambiguous and mandates that both IIBs and SIBs be reduced by the same proportion when contribution is warranted for a prior injury. Consequently, Appellant is entitled to an 11/17ths reduction of Appellee’s supplemental income benefits.

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Impairment Income Benefits (IIBs)Prior Compensable InjuryProportionate ReductionStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommission Appeals Panel
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Communications Workers v. SBC Disability Income Plan

This case addresses defendants' motions to dismiss the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) as a party-plaintiff. CWA and Rene Anzaldua initiated the lawsuit to challenge the denial of Mr. Anzaldua's long-term disability benefits under the SBC Disability Income Plan, citing violations of the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Defendants argued that CWA lacked standing, as ERISA limits plaintiffs to 'participants,' 'beneficiaries,' or 'fiduciaries,' none of which apply to CWA. The court analyzed statutory definitions and rejected CWA's claims of derivative or associational standing, highlighting the necessity of individual member participation for benefit determination. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Anzaldua adequately represented the union's interests. Consequently, the motions to dismiss CWA as a party-plaintiff were granted.

ERISAStanding to SueLabor UnionsDisability BenefitsMotion to DismissStatutory ConstructionEmployee BenefitsLong-Term DisabilityAssociational StandingFederal Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. Dkt. # 6, Dkt. # 7
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Crayton v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals the denial of supplemental security income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2009, alleging inability to work due to various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The District Court reviews the Commissioner's decision, finding that while the ALJ's assessment of exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ failed to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) in analyzing non-exertional limitations. Consequently, the court remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for proper application of the PRT.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgePsychiatric Review TechniqueRFCExertional LimitationsNon-exertional LimitationsDepressionAnxiety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Crisanti

This Supreme Court order unanimously affirmed a prior decision that denied a petition to vacate an arbitration award. The dispute involved a terminated arbitrageur's entitlement to a bonus. The court found no manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel, noting that the legal principles were not well-defined. It upheld the arbitrators' finding of an implied right to a bonus based on the parties' dealings and industry practice. The court also determined that the refusal to hear a proposed witness was not fundamentally unfair as the testimony would have been cumulative, and an alleged misrepresentation by respondent's attorney did not constitute fraud. Finally, the award was found not to offend public policy.

Arbitration AwardBonus EntitlementEmployment DisputeContract InterpretationArbitrageurJudicial ReviewManifest Disregard of LawWitness TestimonyFraud AllegationPublic Policy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shapiro v. New York University

Loretta Shapiro filed a lawsuit against New York University and related entities seeking pension benefits under ERISA, contesting the exclusion of her "ADD COMP" payments from her pensionable income. Previously, these payments, considered bonuses by the defendants, were included in her pension estimates. Upon application for retirement benefits, the Plan Administrator re-evaluated and denied the inclusion of "ADD COMP" in her pensionable earnings, asserting discretion to interpret plan terms. The court applied an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review to the Administrator's decision, given the plan's broad grant of interpretive authority. Finding the term "bonus" ambiguous and the Administrator's interpretation reasonable, even with a potential conflict of interest, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Shapiro's cross-motion.

ERISAPension BenefitsSummary JudgmentPlan Administrator DiscretionBonus PaymentsCompensation DefinitionArbitrary and Capricious StandardConflict of InterestRetirement PlanEmployee Benefits
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 819 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