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

Hason v. Department of Health

The petitioner, a physician, sought review of a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which suspended his medical license. The ARB's decision was based on a prior California Board finding that the petitioner's ability to practice medicine was impaired by mental illness (bipolar affective disorder and narcissistic personality disorder). The court upheld the ARB's finding of professional misconduct, applying collateral estoppel to the California determination. However, the court found the penalty imposed by the ARB—a one-year suspension "and thereafter until such time as [petitioner] can demonstrate his fitness to practice medicine"—was not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Consequently, the court modified the determination by annulling the penalty and remitted the matter to the ARB for the imposition of a statutorily appropriate penalty.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductPsychiatric ImpairmentMental IllnessBipolar Affective DisorderNarcissistic Personality DisorderCollateral EstoppelArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewPenalty Annulment
References
26
Case No. M2021-01141-SC-R3-BP
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2022

Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Candes Vonniest Prewitt

This case involves an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee concerning attorney Candes Vonniest Prewitt's professional misconduct. A hearing panel found Prewitt violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures in expert disclosures, conflicts of interest due to a romantic relationship with her client, and improper withdrawal from representation. The Chancery Court affirmed these findings and the imposed sanctions, which included a thirty-day suspension, additional ethics education, and a practice monitor. The Supreme Court of Tennessee subsequently affirmed the decisions of both the hearing panel and the trial court, upholding the findings of misconduct and the disciplinary actions.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductConflict of InterestRules of Professional ConductAttorney CompetenceDiligenceWithdrawal from RepresentationExpert DisclosureLegal EthicsSanctions
References
33
Case No. 03-08-00288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Texas Society of Professional Engineers v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and Cathy Hendricks, Executive Director

The Texas Society of Professional Engineers appealed the trial court's partial grant of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (TBAE) and its Executive Director. The Society sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the TBAE from initiating enforcement proceedings against licensed engineers for alleged violations of the Architecture Practice Act, asserting engineers are exempt and TBAE lacks jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea in part, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over most claims except those challenging TBAE rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order, concluding the Society lacked associational standing to pursue the broad relief requested under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. This was because such claims required a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of individual engineers' conduct, not pure issues of law.

JurisdictionAssociational StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPlea to the JurisdictionProfessional LicensingArchitectureEngineeringAdministrative LawRegulatory Authority
References
14
Case No. Nos. 3:00-0448; 3:01-0216; 3:02-0129; 3:02-0152
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Southern Electrical Health Fund v. Kelley

These four consolidated actions involve claims under the Miller Act and ERISA, along with breach of contract cross-claims. The Court conducted a bench trial from June 3 to June 6, 2003. The Court found Mr. Cates and Cates, Inc. in contempt for violating a temporary injunction and ordered them to pay a compliance fine. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs against Cates, Inc. and Heritage for Miller Act violations and against Mr. Cates for breach of his ERISA fiduciary duties. The cross-claims between KTE and Cates, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice due to a mandatory arbitration clause.

Miller ActERISABreach of ContractContempt of CourtFiduciary DutyJoint EmployerSubcontractor LiabilitySurety BondPension FundsHealth Funds
References
43
Case No. 07-14-00109-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Doe 1, Doe 2 and Doe 3 v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's summary judgment in favor of National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, concerning a coverage dispute. The insureds, identified as Doe #1, Doe #2, and Doe #3, sought coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy for claims of sexual misconduct. National Union argued that an endorsement (MS #2) replaced the policy's original exclusions with new ones, specifically excluding liability from conduct of a sexual nature. The insureds contended the endorsement's exclusions were ambiguous and only applied to clergy counseling professional liability coverage. The Court of Appeals found the language of the MS #2 endorsement ambiguous, thus reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Insurance CoverageCommercial General LiabilityPolicy ExclusionsAmbiguitySummary JudgmentSexual MisconductClergy CounselingAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTexas Law
References
7
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sauls v. Union Oil Co. of California

Plaintiff Buel L. Sauls, Jr. brought claims against Defendant Union Oil Company of California for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy related to his employment at Unocal's Beaumont refinery. Unocal sought partial summary judgment, arguing federal labor law preemption, non-liability for co-worker actions, and that the alleged conduct was not extreme or outrageous. The court denied Unocal's motion, concluding that Sauls' state law tort claims were not preempted by the LMRA. It also found genuine issues of material fact regarding Unocal's potential liability for the actions of Sauls' co-workers and management, and determined that the alleged workplace harassment and misconduct could indeed constitute extreme and outrageous conduct under Texas law, precluding summary judgment.

summary judgmentemotional distresslabor law preemptioncollective bargaining agreementemployer liabilityco-worker harassmentTexas common lawoutrageous conductTitle VIILMRA
References
21
Case No. 03-98-00533-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. 3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an "additional tax" after its merger, claiming the tax was unconstitutional as it resulted in fiscal year taxpayers paying tax on earned surplus over a longer period than calendar year taxpayers upon ceasing business. The district court sided with Bealls. However, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the additional tax. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state purposes of revenue generation and mitigating fiscal effects of corporate reorganizations, and it did not violate equal protection, equal and uniform taxation, or the federal commerce clause. The court determined the tax applied even-handedly based on previously untaxed earned surplus and Bealls had a substantial nexus with Texas.

Franchise TaxAdditional TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseTaxationFiscal YearCalendar YearCorporate ReorganizationEarned Surplus
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 15,705 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