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. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCollum v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation

Carolyn McCollum sued the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (Department) after being terminated from the Texas Cosmetology Commission (Commission), alleging race, age, disability discrimination, and retaliation, as well as a hostile work environment. She initially filed complaints with the EEOC and TWC. The trial court granted the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting McCollum's federal claims were barred by sovereign immunity and state claims were untimely due to delayed filing and service. On appeal, McCollum abandoned her federal claims, focusing on her state law claims under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court ruled that the 60-day period for filing and serving suit under Texas Labor Code § 21.254 is not a jurisdictional requirement, distinguishing it from other mandatory jurisdictional provisions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing McCollum's state claims to proceed.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTimely filingTimely serviceJurisdictional requirementsAppellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. M2001-00174-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Terminix International Co. v. Department of Labor

This case concerns an appeal regarding the jurisdictional authority of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA), to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations for pesticide applicators. Appellants Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P., challenged TOSHA's jurisdiction, asserting preemption by federal laws like FIFRA and FOSH. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed TOSHA's authority, noting that state agriculture regulations focus on pesticide labeling and applicator licensing, not employee workplace safety. The Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld this decision, concluding that Congress did not intend to fully preempt state regulation of pesticide use in the workplace, thus affirming TOSHA's jurisdiction and obligation to ensure worker health and safety from pesticide-related risks.

Pesticide RegulationOccupational Safety and HealthFederal PreemptionState JurisdictionPersonal Protective Equipment (PPE)TOSHA (Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act)FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act)Workplace Safety InspectionsAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. Uliano & Son. Ltd. v. New York State Department of Labor

This case involves a judicial review of an administrative determination by the New York State Department of Labor concerning prevailing wages and supplemental benefits under Labor Law § 220. The court found that the Department of Labor failed to adequately explain the daily classification of an employee, John Bradley, leading to an unsupported determination of wage underpayment, which was annulled and remitted for reassessment. However, the court affirmed the Department's findings regarding the number of hours worked by employees, the petitioners' willful violation of prevailing wage laws, and the falsification of payroll records, as these determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The decision emphasizes the deference given to the Department's expertise in trade classifications and the employer's burden to negate calculations when records are inaccurate.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawLabor LawPrevailing WageSubstantial EvidenceUnderpayment of WagesWage ClassificationPayroll FalsificationWillful ViolationNew York
References
23
Case No. M2010-02082-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2012

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Workers' Compensation Division

The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed a penalty assessed by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The penalty was for failing to file Form C-20 reports for 'medical only' work injuries. The court found that Liberty Mutual was not afforded proper notice of the true basis for the penalty, which was a failure to file Form C-21, a violation of due process. Additionally, the Department exceeded its authority by changing the reporting requirements for medical-only injuries through an 'interpretation' of an unambiguous rule, effectively creating a new regulation without proper amendment. Consequently, the trial court's decision affirming the penalty was reversed, and the case was remanded to vacate the penalty.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawWorkers' CompensationPenalty AssessmentNotice RequirementsStatutory InterpretationRegulatory AuthorityForm C-20Form C-21Medical Only Injuries
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobsen v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a senior stenographer for the Department of Labor, was terminated after cumulative absences due to a work-related injury exceeded one year, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The Department calculated absences including non-workdays. Petitioner challenged the calculation and argued improper termination due to lack of notice regarding the concurrent running of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. The court found respondent's method of calculating Civil Service Law § 71 leave rational. However, it determined that the Department of Labor failed to provide proper notice that petitioner's FMLA leave would run concurrently with her workers' compensation leave. Consequently, the court annulled the termination, granted the petition for reinstatement with back pay and benefits, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service LawFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Cumulative AbsencesTermination of EmploymentMedical DisabilityNotice RequirementsReinstatementBack Pay and BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
2
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses Chesterfield Associates' challenge to the New York Department of Labor's 'annualization' rule (12 NYCRR 220.2 [d]), used to assess compliance with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law art 8) on public projects. Chesterfield disputed the annualization of its profit-sharing pension contributions made on behalf of employees who worked on public projects in Nassau and Suffolk counties between 1994 and 1997. The annualization rule calculates an hourly cash equivalent of benefits by dividing total contributions by total annual hours worked (both public and private). Chesterfield argued this methodology effectively penalized contractors by demanding prevailing rates for private work or forcing cash supplements. The Commissioner of Labor, whose decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, determined that annualization was a reasonable method to value fringe benefits, prevent cost-shifting, and ensure fair competition among contractors.

Prevailing Wage LawAnnualization RuleLabor Law § 220Fringe BenefitsPension ContributionsPublic Works ProjectsContractor ComplianceProfit-Sharing PlanJudicial ReviewAdministrative Deference
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 13,178 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