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. 07-18-00324-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2019

David Sloan Federal Public Defender's Office, Lubbock, Texas Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety Sheriff Cliff Harris, Pecos County Pecos County Sheriff's Department v. John Alan Conroy

Steven C. McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), appealed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by John Alan Conroy. Conroy, a pro se inmate, sought electronic recordings of an interrogation related to a federal child pornography conviction and $20,000,000 in damages for alleged constitutional rights violations under the Texas Constitution. McCraw argued sovereign immunity barred Conroy's claims for monetary damages. The Court of Appeals construed Conroy's petition as a suit for a writ of mandamus under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) regarding the disclosure of the recordings, which is not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the denial of McCraw's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the mandamus action but modified the order to dismiss Conroy's claim for monetary damages due to sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityPublic Information ActMandamusDue ProcessTrial Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodePro Se LitigantDeclaratory Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conroy v. Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB

Plaintiff Lucille Conroy sued Anchor Savings Bank under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging age discrimination after her department was relocated and she was offered layoff instead of a Department Specialist position. Conroy, aged 56, was offered a transfer to Albion or a lower-grade Teller position in Bay Ridge, both of which she declined, opting for severance. A younger employee, Kissoon (age 34), was offered and accepted the Department Specialist position for which Conroy also believed she was qualified. The court, presided over by District Judge Johnson, granted summary judgment to Anchor Savings Bank, finding that Conroy established a prima facie case but failed to prove that age was a determinative factor or that Anchor's reasons for hiring Kissoon were pretextual. Anchor's motion for sanctions against Conroy's counsel was denied due to insufficient evidence of bad faith.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEAPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentWorkforce ReductionRelocationSanctions
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conroy v. Conroy

O’Connor, J., dissents from the majority's decision concerning the interpretation of an ambiguous child support provision within a separation agreement. The key dispute revolves around a clause obligating the defendant to pay '1% of any gross annual increase in the husband’s earnings from the amount set forth above ($8,000), payable on a weekly basis.' The judge argues that the majority's interpretation, which would result in the defendant paying 52% of any income increase over $8,000 annually, is highly implausible. This interpretation would lead to excessively high child support payments for a single child, especially considering the plaintiff's subsequent employment and the defendant's other financial commitments. O’Connor, J. contends that the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing to ascertain the parties' original intentions during the drafting of the separation agreement constitutes a gross abuse of discretion and has resulted in a significant injustice to the defendant. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the order and remanding the matter to Special Term for such a hearing.

Child SupportSeparation AgreementAmbiguous ContractEvidentiary HearingContract InterpretationMarital AgreementJudicial DissentSpousal ObligationsIncome IncreaseFinancial Obligation
References
1
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. 92
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Aungst

Claimant Frank Aungst, a store manager for Family Dollar, contracted COVID-19 in April 2020 and subsequently suffered a stroke. He filed a workers' compensation claim, alleging work-related exposure due to his frequent public contact in an essential retail role with inadequate protective measures. The Workers' Compensation Board established the claim, applying a "prevalence" framework for COVID-19 exposure, which assesses significantly elevated hazards in the workplace. The employer argued this framework was inconsistent with the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's decision, finding the "prevalence" framework compatible with current interpretations of the law, and that the Board's findings of work-related COVID-19 and consequential stroke were supported by substantial evidence.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCausal RelationshipWorkplace ExposurePrevalence FrameworkStrokeEssential WorkerRetailNew York Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. ADJ3867236 (LAO 0817551)
Regular
Jan 20, 2012

RODNEY LIDDELL vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION, Permissibly Self-Insured c/o INTERCARE INSURANCE

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding applicant entitled to vocational rehabilitation services and VRMA. The defendant argued that jurisdiction had expired and no procedural framework existed for completing a vocational rehabilitation plan. However, the Board found the defendant failed to comply with interruption notice requirements, thereby preserving the applicant's right to services. The Board suggested parties agree to a QRR or return to the WCJ for dispute resolution, confirming an adequate framework remains.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardVocational RehabilitationVRMALabor Code Section 5410Rehabilitation UnitQualified Rehabilitation RepresentativeAdministrative Director Rule 9813Interruption Notice
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2013

Conroy v. Incorporated Village

The plaintiffs, former lifeguards, initiated an action against their employer, the defendant municipality, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 203-c due to the surreptitious installation of a video recording device in their changing room. Additionally, they asserted common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The defendant subsequently sought to amend its answer to include affirmative defenses, specifically invoking the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law and noncompliance with notice of claim statutes (CPLR 9801 and General Municipal Law § 50-e). The court partially granted the defendant's motion, allowing the Workers’ Compensation Law defense to be asserted only against the intentional infliction of emotional harm claim. However, the court denied the application of this defense to the negligence claim, noting that Labor Law § 203-c provides cumulative remedies. Furthermore, the court denied the defendant's attempt to assert a defense based on defective notices of claim, deeming the plaintiffs' notices sufficient.

Labor LawVideo SurveillanceEmployer LiabilityEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendNotice of ClaimMunicipal LawCivil Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conroy v. Carter Automotive Products Corp.

The plaintiff, a machine operator, sustained a disabling back injury attributed to repetitive work motions. The trial court dismissed her worker's compensation claim, erroneously requiring a single, identifiable 'accident.' The appellate court reversed, clarifying that a gradually developed, work-connected injury qualifies as an 'accident' under the Worker's Compensation Act. Expert medical testimony from Dr. B.N. Lakshmikanth corroborated the work-related nature and severity of the plaintiff's injury. The case was remanded to determine the extent of disability and medical expenses.

worker's compensationrepetitive strain injuryback paincausationmedical evidenceappellate courtlegal errorgradual injuryTennessee lawoccupational disease
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1967

Claim of Foss v. Joseph P. Conroy, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed October 30, 1967, which denied compensation for an injury sustained after work hours. The claimant, a sewing machine operator, fell on a public sidewalk near her employer's factory in Johnstown. Although the employer maintained the sidewalk due to local law, the Board found the accident did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, as it occurred on public property beyond the employer's premises and not as a required route of access. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the mishap was not within the employment precincts.

Workers' Compensation LawOff-Premises InjuryCourse of EmploymentPublic SidewalkEmployer ControlAccess RouteSlip and FallAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionJohnstown
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 119 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