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

Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Functional Restoration Associates

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed a decision holding Continental liable for medical treatment costs provided by Functional Restoration Associates (FRA) and Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE) to an injured employee. The trial court dismissed Continental's suit, citing a lack of statutory basis for judicial review of the Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental argued for both statutory and inherent rights to judicial review. The appellate court found no explicit or implied statutory right but concluded that Continental had an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision affected Continental’s vested property interest (money). The court also rejected the Commission's argument regarding untimely filing. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judicial ReviewMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawDue ProcessProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationRemandTexas LawAppellate Court
References
30
Case No. 03-97-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Continental Casualty Insurance Company v. Functional Restoration Associates Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Functional Restoration Associates (FRA), Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE), and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission). Continental sought judicial review of a Commission decision holding it liable for medical costs for an injured employee, James Hood. The trial court had dismissed the suit, citing a lack of statutory jurisdiction for judicial review of Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental asserted both statutory and inherent bases for jurisdiction. The appellate court found no explicit or necessarily implied statutory right to judicial review of DMR decisions. However, it concluded that Continental possessed an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision directly affected Continental's vested property interest in the money it was ordered to pay. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment of dismissal and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including a review of whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessVested Property RightsMedical Benefits DisputeAppellate JurisdictionTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cazales v. Lecon, Inc.

Rogelio Cazales was fatally electrocuted at the Houston National Veteran’s Administration Cemetery while excavating for a water line. His family (the Cazaleses) and Le-con, Inc., the general contractor, filed a wrongful death and survival action and a third-party claim, respectively, against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), specifically invoking the discretionary function exception. The court granted the VA's motion, ruling that the VA's decisions regarding the contractual delegation of worker safety responsibility to Lecon, and its limited safety inspections, were discretionary functions grounded in public policy and thus protected from suit under the FTCA, regardless of alleged negligence.

Summary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionGovernment Contractor LiabilityWorkplace AccidentWrongful Death ClaimGovernment Agency ResponsibilityFederal JurisdictionTort Claim
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abrams-Fogliani v. United States

Jennifer Abrams-Fogliani sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries sustained while ascending allegedly uneven stairs at the Fort Totten Army Base in Queens, New York. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction on two grounds: that the City of New York, as lessee of the building, was an independent contractor, and that the claim was barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The court found that the City was indeed an independent contractor, precluding vicarious liability on the part of the government. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Army's decision to lease the property and delegate maintenance, as well as its subsequent supervision, constituted discretionary functions protected from suit. Consequently, the government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed in its entirety.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCADiscretionary Function ExceptionIndependent ContractorSovereign ImmunityPremises LiabilityLease AgreementGovernment LiabilitySummary JudgmentPersonal Injury
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwitek v. United States Postal Service

Edward Kwitek, a driver for Midwest Transport, Inc., sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained while loading mail at a post office, alleging negligence by USPS employees. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Kwitek was an independent contractor and his injury resulted from a discretionary function, thereby making the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable. The court denied the government's motion. It ruled that the independent contractor exception did not apply because the alleged negligence was on the part of USPS employees failing to perform their regular duties. Furthermore, the discretionary function exception was also inapplicable, as the alleged conduct was not policy-driven but rather a failure to follow established protocol. The case was then referred for a settlement conference.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndependent Contractor ExceptionDiscretionary Function ExceptionNegligenceUnited States Postal ServicePersonal InjuryLoading Dock InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooley v. United States

On December 8, 1981, six coal miners died in a methane gas explosion at the Grundy Mining Company in Whitwell, Tennessee. Their estates, represented by their widows and administratrix, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligence by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Plaintiffs claimed MSHA employees were negligent in approving unsafe ventilation plans, failing to conduct adequate inspections, and failing to enforce safety standards, leading to the miners' deaths. The United States moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity under the FTCA's discretionary function exception. The court analyzed MSHA's statutory and regulatory authority, concluding that MSHA inspectors exercised significant discretion in their duties, and their actions were grounded in governmental policy. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court found that the discretionary function exception applied, barring the plaintiffs' claims. Consequently, the complaints were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mine SafetyMethane Gas ExplosionFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSovereign ImmunityFederal Mine Safety and Health ActMSHAVentilation PlansSafety ViolationsWrongful Death
References
35
Case No. CV-22-2032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of John Deliso

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board regarding a claim filed by John Deliso, a maintenance supervisor, for work-related repetitive stress injuries. The claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injuries to wrists and shoulders was established. However, the employer alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, providing surveillance videos that contradicted Deliso's reported functional abilities during permanency evaluations by his treating physician, Christopher Kyriakides. An independent medical examination by Sean Lager also found no functional impairment and symptom magnification. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, affirmed by the Board, found that Deliso made material misrepresentations regarding his functional abilities, thus violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of material misrepresentations and upholding the discretionary disqualification from future wage replacement benefits due to the egregious nature of the deception.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSurveillance EvidenceMedical EvaluationSchedule Loss of UseDisqualificationOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewMaterial Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tremblay v. United States

Plaintiff Thomas A. Tremblay sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained during pilot training, alleging FAA inspector Rick Taylor negligently instructed him to jump from an airplane exit. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The Court granted the motion, finding that FAA decisions regarding training programs, supervision, and regulation were discretionary and immune from judicial review. It also determined that Taylor's instruction fell within this protected discretion. Thus, Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Aviation AdministrationAirline TrainingPilot SafetyGovernment NegligenceMotion to DismissPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wittorf v. City of New York

This is a dissenting opinion in a case where the plaintiff sustained severe facial injuries after hitting a large pothole while bicycling in Central Park. A City Department of Transportation (DOT) employee allowed the plaintiff to proceed despite knowing about the road defect and without providing a warning. A jury found the DOT worker negligent and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. However, the trial court set aside the verdict, granting the defendant's motion on the grounds of governmental immunity, stating the DOT worker's conduct was a discretionary act. The majority affirmed this decision. The dissent argues that the DOT employee's actions were proprietary, related to roadway maintenance, and not a discretionary governmental function, therefore, the City should not be immune from liability and the jury verdict should be reinstated.

Pothole accidentMunicipal liabilityGovernmental immunityProprietary functionDiscretionary actNegligenceRoad maintenanceJury verdictAppellate reviewDissenting opinion
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 877 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