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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

Ernest Polk v. Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2017

Gentle Acupuncture, P.C. v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

Gentle Acupuncture, P.C., as an assignee, appealed an order from the District Court of Suffolk County that granted Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing a claim for first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term reversed the order, denying the defendant's motion. The court found that the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment regarding the workers' compensation fee schedule, as it did not provide an expert's affidavit for interpretation. Furthermore, while the defendant submitted an independent medical examination report by Dr. LoCascio, the plaintiff's affirmation from Dr. Vatelman sufficiently rebutted its conclusions regarding medical necessity, and any objections to the affirmation's technical defects were deemed waived by the defendant.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentMedical necessityWorkers' compensation fee scheduleIndependent medical examination (IME)AcupunctureAppellate TermExpert affidavit requirementCPLR 2106(a)Jurat defect
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02942 [205 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Matter of Casino Towing Serv., Inc. v. New York City Dept. of Consumer & Worker Protection

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied a petition by Casino Towing Service, Inc. to annul a determination by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP). DCWP had suspended Casino Towing's tow truck license for three months due to violations of insurance coverage rules, specifically for modifying its policy to reduce coverage below mandated amounts and failing to report the change within 10 days. The Appellate Division found DCWP's determination to be rationally supported by the record and not arbitrary and capricious. The court further held that Casino Towing did not have a constitutional due process right to a hearing, as there is no property interest in the renewal of an expired license and adequate notice and opportunity for written submissions were provided. The penalty was also deemed not to shock the conscience.

Tow Truck License SuspensionInsurance Coverage ViolationsAdministrative Code ViolationsDue Process RightsLicense RenewalAppellate ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousPenalty Shock the ConscienceCPLR Article 78DCWP Determination
References
10
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. 2013-1427 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2016

Harvard Med., P.C. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

This is an appeal by Harvard Medical, P.C., as assignee of Lenford Carty, against Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. The appeal is from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered April 12, 2013, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant argued that it had fully paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order, citing a related case, Renelique, as Assignee of Yvon Delgado v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAssignee
References
1
Case No. 2011-192 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v. Tri State Consumer Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied defendant Tri State Consumer Ins. Co.'s cross motion for summary judgment. Jamaica Dedicated Medical Care, P.C., as assignee, sought first-party no-fault benefits. Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. contended that it had either properly reimbursed services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule or timely denied others due to lack of medical necessity. The Appellate Term found a triable issue of fact regarding medical necessity and that the defendant failed to establish its workers' compensation fee schedule defense as a matter of law. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentMedical necessityWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewAssigneeInsurance claimCivil CourtAppellate TermKings County
References
2
Case No. 7:13-cv-02553-NSR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2016

Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs Michael Goldemberg, Annie Le, and Howard Petlack initiated a class action against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., alleging deceptive labeling of "Aveeno Active Naturals" products. They claimed the "Active Naturals" label falsely implied natural ingredients despite the presence of synthetics, leading consumers to pay a price premium. The court granted class certification for New York, California, and Florida subclasses, with modifications to exclude products not purchased by the named plaintiffs and certain advertising claims. Additionally, the court denied Defendant's motion to preclude Plaintiffs' damages expert's report, deeming its methodology sufficiently reliable for the certification stage. This decision allows the case to proceed as a class action focused on the objective deceptiveness of the product packaging.

Class ActionConsumer ProtectionDeceptive LabelingFalse AdvertisingProduct LiabilityPrice PremiumClass CertificationRule 23Daubert MotionNew York Law
References
92
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 6,027 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