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

Bryant v. New York Transit Authority

The case concerns cross-appeals from decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a bus driver's involuntary retirement and lost earnings. The claimant suffered a seizure and physical injuries, leading to disability retirement. The Board initially found involuntary retirement due to permanent partial disability but shifted the burden to the claimant to prove subsequent lost earnings were causally related to his disability after May 13, 2004, concluding his failure to seek work caused the loss. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Board erred in shifting the burden to the claimant, as an involuntary retirement due to a permanent partial disability infers post-retirement lost earnings are due to that disability. The court emphasized that merely not seeking work post-retirement does not defeat this inference or shift the burden. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Involuntary RetirementPermanent Partial DisabilityLost Earnings CausationBurden of Proof ShiftRebuttable PresumptionFailure to Seek WorkAppellate ReversalRemittiturBus Driver DisabilitySeizure-related Injuries
References
11
Case No. 13-03-038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

Tina Bruno v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas

This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by Tina Bruno, individually and as natural guardian of Charles Bruno, deceased, and Jasime Bruno, a minor, against Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas. The appellants contested the trial court's finding that Charles Bruno was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his death. They argued the evidence was legally and factually insufficient and that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding regarding Charles Bruno's employment status at the time of the incident and that the burden of proof was not impermissibly shifted.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentDeath BenefitsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. BTR Sealing Systems North America-Tennessee Operations

This workers' compensation case involves Donald Fitzgerald, an employee, seeking to compel BTR Sealing Systems North America to cover shoulder joint replacement surgery for a 1997 work injury. Despite a prior settlement leaving future medical benefits open, BTR refused the surgery, arguing lack of causation. The trial court sided with Fitzgerald, ordering the treatment. On appeal, BTR contended the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof and that evidence did not support causation. The appellate court affirmed, finding no burden shifting and sufficient evidence to link the surgery need to the original 1997 injury, compelling BTR to provide the recommended medical treatment.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryMedical TreatmentCausationDegenerative ArthritisJoint ReplacementBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence
References
9
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co.

The Hannans sued Alltel Publishing Co. for negligence and breach of contract after their advertisement and business listings were omitted from a telephone directory, claiming significant loss of business and emotional distress. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Alltel, reasoning the Hannans could not prove damages, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal, clarifying the state's burden-shifting standard for summary judgment motions. The Court reiterated that a moving party must either affirmatively negate an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or demonstrate that the nonmoving party cannot prove an essential element at trial, rejecting a 'put up or shut up' approach. It concluded that Alltel's evidence, including the Hannans' increased gross income in the year of omission and their inability to precisely quantify damages, did not sufficiently negate the existence of damages, thus failing to shift the burden of proof to the Hannans.

Summary JudgmentBurden of ProofNegligence ClaimBreach of ContractLoss of ProfitsDamages ProofAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseMaterial FactGenuine Issue for Trial
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moini v. University of Texas

Plaintiff Mehdi Moini brought claims of discrimination based on national origin and age, and retaliation against Defendant University of Texas at Austin. Moini alleged various adverse employment actions, including removal of titles, reprimands, failure to be hired for a tenure-track position, and non-renewal of his appointment. The Defendants asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions and denied discriminatory or retaliatory intent. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the Court found Moini failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims or rebut the Defendants' proffered reasons. Consequently, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionPretextNational Origin DiscriminationAge Discrimination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Augustus v. AHRC Nassau

Plaintiff Susan Augustus sued her former employer, AHRC Nassau, for racial discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under FMLA. Augustus alleged stricter performance standards and termination based on race, and retaliation for advocating for a pregnant client's FMLA rights. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. While Augustus established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the court found AHRC Nassau provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, and Augustus failed to prove pretext or discriminatory intent. The court also found no evidence of FMLA retaliation. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, ruling in favor of AHRC Nassau.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIIFMLA RetaliationAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextWork PerformanceCommunication Issues
References
22
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05627
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2018

Suri v. Grey Global Group, Inc.

This case involves Rachana Suri's appeal against Grey Global Group, Inc., regarding the dismissal of her employment discrimination claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of most claims but modified the lower court's decision on Suri's gender discrimination claim under the City Human Rights Law. The court found triable issues of fact as to whether Suri was subjected to a hostile work environment after rebuffing her supervisor's alleged sexual overture. It emphasized a broad interpretation of the City Human Rights Law, stating that the traditional burden-shifting framework is not always applicable to such hostile work environment claims, leading to a partial denial of summary judgment for defendants on this specific claim.

Gender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentCity Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBurden-Shifting FrameworkSexual OvertureEmployment LawWorkplace Discrimination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathews v. Huntington

Plaintiff Joseph Mathews filed an age discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, Atria Huntington, and an employee, Alex Stehly, alleging violations of the ADEA and NYHRL following his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for his dismissal, including resident complaints about food quality, non-compliance with purchasing policies, and an incident where Mathews yelled at a subordinate. The court reviewed the evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and found that Mathews failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationADEANYHRLSummary JudgmentBurden-ShiftingPretext for DiscriminationEmployee TerminationWorkplace MisconductFood Service Industry
References
48
Case No. 04-14-00746-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2014

Alamo Heights ISD v. Catherine Clark

Alamo Heights Independent School District (AHISD) appeals a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by former teacher Catherine Clark. Clark alleges gender discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). AHISD argues that Clark failed to establish a prima facie case for her claims and did not provide sufficient evidence of pretext for her termination, which AHISD asserts was based on numerous performance deficiencies and unprofessional conduct. The district contends the trial court erred by not applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework as part of its jurisdictional analysis, praying for a reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of Clark's claims.

TexasEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentGovernmental ImmunityMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkTCHRAPlea to JurisdictionAppellate Law
References
85
Showing 1-10 of 1,799 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