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. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leatherwood v. United Parcel Service

Frank M. Leatherwood, a UPS driver, appealed a summary judgment granted to his employer, United Parcel Service, and its insurer, Liberty Mutual, in a lawsuit alleging harassment, constitutional violations, and retaliatory discharge after he sustained work-related injuries from two assaults in 1982. Leatherwood had previously received a 50% permanent disability award in a workers' compensation case. The trial court found his claims barred by the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that most of Leatherwood's claims fell under the exclusive remedy rule and that his retaliatory discharge claim lacked merit, as his grievance was the failure to provide alternative employment rather than an actual retaliatory dismissal given his stated disability. The court noted Leatherwood's prior testimony of being 100% disabled from performing his duties contradicted his current position.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyRetaliatory DischargeDisabilityAssaultEmployer HarassmentInsurance Bad FaithTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2017-06-1778
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2018

Demotte, Julie v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The employee, Julie Demotte, suffered a left hip injury during her employment with United Parcel Service, Inc. The employer initially accepted the claim, providing medical and temporary disability benefits. However, at trial, the court disallowed the employee's Form C-30A for proving permanent medical impairment, denying permanent disability benefits. The Appeals Board reversed this decision, stating that the employer's prior acknowledgments in court and in its brief regarding the 3% impairment rating made further expert medical proof unnecessary. The case has been remanded to determine the permanent disability benefits owed to the employee based on the unrefuted impairment rating.

Workers' Compensation AppealsPermanent Medical ImpairmentAdmissibility of Medical ReportsForm C-30AJudicial EstoppelEmployer StipulationHip InjuryMedical Impairment RatingTrial Court ErrorRemand for Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2016-06-0832
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2016

Gilbert, Thomas v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Thomas Gilbert filed a second Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking temporary disability benefits from the last day he worked until United Parcel Service (UPS) began post-surgery temporary total disability payments. The Court reviewed the claim, which concerned an aggravation of a pre-existing left knee injury. A central piece of evidence was an undated "Work Comp Status Sheet" attributed to Dr. David Moore, indicating work restrictions; however, the Court questioned its reliability due to issues with authentication and inconsistencies with another physician's findings. Ultimately, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Kenneth M. Switzer, denied Mr. Gilbert's request, finding he failed to satisfy the burden of proof to show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits for past temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingWork RestrictionsMedical Evidence AdmissibilityBurden of ProofKnee InjuryPre-existing Injury AggravationEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. ADJ8718778
Regular
Jul 06, 2015

BETOEL GOMEZ vs. UNITED PALLET SERVICES, CIGA

This case concerns applicant Betoel Gomez's claim for permanent disability due to a right hand and bilateral wrist injury. The defendant, United Pallet Services, sought reconsideration of a $21\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) improperly used an analogical rating rather than AMA Guides' scheduled ratings. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, agreeing the QME failed to adequately justify the analogical rating in his supplemental report. Ultimately, the Board amended the award to $10\%$ permanent disability, based on the QME's initial report which applied the AMA Guides to grip strength loss.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAUllico Casualty Companyliquidationpermanent disabilityWhole Person ImpairmentWPIAMA GuidesAlmaraz/GuzmanQualified Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Secretary of United States Depatment of Health & Human Services

Charles Bennett ("plaintiff") is appealing a final decision by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, which denied his application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Bennett, a 41-year-old with a history of heart issues and a December 1986 back injury, claims disability, which was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge and upheld by the Appeals Council. The court's review examines whether the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence, specifically evaluating the "treating physician rule" concerning the opinions of Dr. Blum and Dr. Gold versus consulting physicians like Dr. Massoff. While objective tests confirm a bulging disc and treating physicians noted decreased range of motion, the court found their cursory "total disability" conclusion for Workers' Compensation purposes insufficient under the Act. Consequently, the court remands the case to the Secretary, requiring further information on Bennett's current residual functional capacity for sedentary or light work.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeResidual Functional CapacityLumbosacral Spine StrainBulging DiscTreating Physician RuleRemandAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals Council
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.

The plaintiff, Thomas Davis, a former "ramp serviceman" for United Air Lines, Inc., sued his employer following his dismissal due to a physical disability (epilepsy). He alleged wrongful dismissal in violation of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asserting a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a federal contract and a violation of a collective bargaining agreement which he claimed incorporated the Act's affirmative action provisions. Chief Judge Weinstein granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The court ruled that there is no private right of action under Section 503, as established in a prior appeal concerning the same plaintiff (Davis v. United Air Lines, Inc.), and that allowing a third-party beneficiary claim would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the plaintiff's claim under the collective bargaining agreement was dismissed as he failed to exhaust the mandatory Railway Labor Act procedures, and his "futility" argument was rejected.

Rehabilitation ActWrongful DismissalThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability DiscriminationRailway Labor ActMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionFederal Contract LawAffirmative Action
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2000

Soledad v. United States Department of Treasury

Plaintiff Jose A. Soledad filed suit against the United States Customs Service, alleging disability discrimination and a hostile work environment under the Rehabilitation Act. A jury initially found for the plaintiff, but the defendant subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial. The Court granted the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the jury was improperly instructed on the causation standard, requiring "solely by reason of" disability, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict under this stricter standard. The Court also conditionally granted the motion for a new trial due to the prejudicial error in jury instructions and vacated the original judgment.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation Act of 1973Hostile Work EnvironmentJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialJury Instructions ErrorCausation StandardSolely By Reason OfAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Title VII Civil Rights Act
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 12,117 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