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

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. 01-15-00152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way, L.L.C. v. Martinez R.O.W., LLC F/K/A Martinez Investments

Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way, L.L.C. (Appellants) contracted with Southern Brush S.W., Inc., and then subcontracted part of the work to Martinez R.O.W., L.L.C. (Appellee). An employee of Martinez, Bonifacio Gomez, was injured on the job and sued Mullins. Mullins filed a cross-claim against Martinez for indemnity and contribution, arguing Martinez agreed to indemnify Blue Sky and Mullins. Martinez, a workers' compensation subscriber, moved for summary judgment under Tex. Labor Code § 417.004, asserting no written agreement for liability assumption existed. The trial court granted Martinez's summary judgment and denied Mullins' subsequent motions to vacate and amend. This appeal concerns whether the district court properly granted summary judgment, given the absence of a pre-accident written agreement where Martinez assumed Mullins' liability.

Workers' CompensationIndemnityContributionSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeExpress Negligence RuleThird-Party LiabilityInsurance CertificateGross NegligenceEmployer Protection
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lewis v. Stewart's Marketing Corp.

A claimant sustained serious injuries in 1997 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. In 2008, a dispute arose regarding the permanency and degree of disability, with conflicting medical reports submitted by the claimant (permanent total disability) and the employer (moderate partial disability). The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the employer's request to cross-examine the claimant and his physician, subsequently ruling that the claimant had a permanent total disability. Upon appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that denying the employer's timely request for cross-examination was improper, especially given the conflicting medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers’ CompensationDisability AssessmentPermanent Total DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationCross-Examination RightsProcedural Due ProcessConflicting Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Reversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pugliese v. Remington Arms, Inc.

The claimant, employed by Remington Arms, Inc. for over three decades, sought workers' compensation benefits, citing severe depression and anxiety stemming from alleged harassment and falsification of attendance records by a supervisor. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied further adjournments for an independent medical examination (IME) report and cross-examination of the treating psychologist, determining the depression to be an occupational disease. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this, reclassifying it as a compensable accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the use of hearsay evidence, the preclusion of their IME report, and the denial of their right to cross-examine the claimant's treating psychologist. The appellate court found sufficient corroboration for the hearsay evidence and upheld the IME report's preclusion due to the carrier's delays. However, the court reversed the denial of cross-examination, stating that the absence of the IME report did not negate the carrier's right, especially given their dispute on causal relationship. Consequently, the case was reversed and remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

DepressionAnxietyWorkplace HarassmentAttendance Records FalsificationIndependent Medical ExaminationIME Report PreclusionRight to Cross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceCorroborating EvidenceOccupational Disease
References
11
Case No. ADJ1880658
Regular
Feb 09, 2011

CLAIRE COATS vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied her motion to strike a permanent disability rating and denied her request for cross-examination of the rater. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant was improperly denied her due process right to cross-examine the rater. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case to the trial level for a new WCJ to conduct further proceedings and issue a new decision, allowing consideration of the applicant's other contentions. This procedural error regarding the cross-examination right necessitated the remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClaire CoatsState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and Award and OrderSenior Claims AdjusterIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityMotion to StrikeCross-examinationRater
References
1
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2004

Claim of Patterson v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield

The claimant sustained physical and psychological injuries on September 11, 2001, during the evacuation of her workplace at World Trade Center Tower One in Manhattan. In March 2003, the employer moved to discontinue benefits, arguing that claimant no longer had a work-related disability. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ordered depositions of medical experts. Claimant’s attorney failed to appear for the deposition of the employer’s orthopedic expert. Consequently, the WCLJ ruled that the claimant waived her right to cross-examine the expert and found no further work-related disability after May 12, 2003. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which the claimant subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of no further disability and concluding that the WCLJ did not abuse its discretion in denying an adjournment for cross-examination.

Workers' CompensationDisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyWaiver of Cross-ExaminationAdjournmentAppellate ReviewSeptember 11World Trade CenterNew York StateWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,067 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