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. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Case No. 03-00-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2000

Gerald H. Laubach v. State Bar of Texas

Gerald H. Laubach appealed the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit against the State Bar of Texas. Laubach had sued the State Bar alleging improper handling of his grievance against an attorney and violations of disciplinary procedures, claiming damages from the misuse of tangible property related to his grievance. The State Bar asserted sovereign and statutory immunity, which the district court upheld. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims involving the negligent use of information in documents. Furthermore, the court noted that the State Bar and its agents are explicitly granted absolute immunity from suit for actions taken in the course of their official duties under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure Rule 15.11.

Sovereign ImmunityStatutory ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGrievance ProcedureProfessional MisconductState Bar of TexasOrder of DismissalJudicial ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort Claim
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New York State Office of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Services & Ortiz

Victor Ortiz, an employee of New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) and a member of PEF, was terminated for failing to maintain his required CASAC certification. OASAS did not follow the disciplinary procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between PEF and the state, asserting that his failure to maintain certification automatically disqualified him. Ortiz, represented by PEF, filed a grievance, arguing his termination violated articles 33 and 39 of the CBA. When OASAS and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations maintained that the grievance process was inapplicable, respondents served a notice of intention to arbitrate. Petitioners sought to permanently stay arbitration in Supreme Court, but their petition was dismissed, and respondents' cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the CBA's disciplinary procedures, falls within the arbitration clause of article 34 of the CBA. The court emphasized that it is for an arbitrator to determine if article 33 of the CBA applies to terminations due to loss of required certification.

Public Sector EmploymentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationProfessional CertificationDisciplinary ProcedureGrievance ProcessAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2009

Justin Ryan McCarthy v. State

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, conditionally granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy. The Board challenged a trial court's order allowing discovery in judicial review suits initiated by three individual accountants concerning the Board's disciplinary decisions. The appellate court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not authorize the use of general discovery rules in judicial review proceedings, even when procedural irregularities are alleged. The court reasoned that while the APA provides for discovery at the agency level, it deliberately omits such provisions for judicial review, thereby limiting the scope of review to the agency record except for evidence of procedural irregularities.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawMandamusDiscoveryTexas Government CodeAdministrative Procedure ActState AgenciesStatutory InterpretationProcedural IrregularitiesCourt of Appeals
References
5
Case No. 03-09-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2010

Juneth Steubing v. City of Killeen, Texas

The Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, as relator, petitioned for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court's order that allowed three individual accountants to conduct discovery in their suits for judicial review of the Board's disciplinary decisions. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the mandamus. The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not provide for the application of general discovery procedures to the judicial review of administrative proceedings. It emphasized that discovery is conducted at the agency level, which is considered the trial level, and appellate review is largely limited to the record developed there. While a district court may receive evidence of procedural irregularities, this does not authorize a new round of discovery. Allowing such discovery would contradict the APA's limitations on the standard and scope of judicial review.

MandamusAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewDiscoveryAgency ProceedingsProtective OrderProcedural IrregularitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
8
Case No. Civil No. 6615
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 1972

Crafton v. Luttrell

This class action, brought by inmates of the Tennessee Department of Correction, challenged the constitutionality of prison disciplinary procedures under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found that existing procedures violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by failing to require decisions based solely on evidence and written statements of reasons for 'grievous loss' punishments like segregation or removal from work release. Declaratory and injunctive relief were granted, mandating prospective application of these new procedural safeguards. The court also modified an earlier consent order, allowing for indeterminate administrative segregation with regular review, rather than a strict 60-day limit, provided due process safeguards are met. However, claims regarding good and honor time forfeiture and parole recommendation revocation were denied due to lack of jurisdiction, directing them to habeas corpus proceedings.

Due ProcessPrisoner RightsClass ActionInjunctive ReliefDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative SegregationPunitive SegregationWork Release ProgramParole RevocationHabeas Corpus
References
41
Case No. 22 NY3d 854 [2013]
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of Roseann Kilduff v. Rochester City School District

In this case, a tenured school social worker was suspended for 30 days without pay. She sought a hearing under Education Law § 3020-a, but the School District insisted she use the grievance procedures in their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The petitioner argued that her CBA, renegotiated in 2006, should grant her the option to elect statutory review procedures as per Education Law § 3020 (1), which applies to CBAs effective on or after September 1, 1994. Initially, the Supreme Court sided with the School District, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the petitioner's request. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the legislative intent of the 1994 amendment to Education Law § 3020 (1) was to ensure tenured educators have a non-negotiable right to choose the statutory disciplinary review process over alternative CBA procedures when the CBA is renegotiated or becomes effective after September 1, 1994.

Tenured EducatorsDisciplinary ProceduresCollective Bargaining AgreementEducation LawEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationNew York Court of AppealsGrievance ArbitrationCPLR Article 78School Social Worker
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioner James Carr, a Highway Maintenance Worker I, was terminated by the Department of Transportation after his commercial driver's license (CDL) was revoked due to an off-duty alcohol-related driving offense. A CDL was a minimum qualification for his position under Civil Service Law § 118 (2) (a). Carr and his union, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging it was arbitrary and capricious, violated due process, and failed to adhere to collective bargaining agreement (CBA) disciplinary procedures. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, which the appellate court affirmed. The court distinguished between termination for misconduct, subject to CBA disciplinary action, and termination for lacking a minimum job qualification, which is not. Given that Carr's termination stemmed from failing to meet a fundamental job requirement, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, the CBA's disciplinary provisions were inapplicable, and his due process rights were upheld as he received notice and an opportunity to respond.

Employment terminationCommercial Driver's LicenseOff-duty conductMinimum qualificationsCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue processCPLR article 78Appellate reviewPublic employment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,709 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