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. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. 03-16-00761-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1999

John S. Stritzinger v. Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

The article "Parallel Litigation" by James P. George provides a comprehensive overview of the strategies and remedies for managing multiple, overlapping lawsuits across different jurisdictional settings: intra-jurisdictional, inter-state, state-federal, and international. It defines parallel litigation, distinguishes it from related litigation, and explores five responses: doing nothing, transfer and consolidation, dismissal, stay, and antisuit injunctions. The author analyzes common doctrines like the first-filed case rule, in rem cases, and declaratory actions, emphasizing the discretionary nature of remedies and the role of comity. The article traces the slow development of precedent, particularly federal court prominence in this area, and highlights the specific tests and challenges in applying these remedies across various legal systems.

Parallel LitigationDuplicative LitigationForum ShoppingAntisuit InjunctionsComityJudicial EconomyAbstention DoctrinesFirst-Filed RuleConsolidationVenue Transfer
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. ADJ8310199
Regular
May 11, 2016

MARTIN MENDEZ vs. SC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, ULTIMATE PERSONNEL SERVICES, AIG for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Defendant AIG sought removal of an order joining it as a party, arguing prejudice and irreparable harm due to a prior dismissal without new evidence. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify this discretionary remedy. The Board cited that AIG failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board was denied.

Petition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeParty DefendantReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIndependent ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5310
References
2
Case No. ADJ9274286
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

RAMON CERVANTES vs. CBS OUTDOOR INC.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed removal, upholding the WCJ's findings. Applicant sought contempt charges and attorney's fees due to an ex parte communication with a PQME, but the Board found such remedies discretionary and not mandated under the circumstances. Declaratory relief regarding PQME report admissibility is premature; admissibility will be determined at trial. The Board dismissed removal as reconsideration is the proper procedural remedy for this final order.

ex parte communicationPQMEdeclaratory reliefcontemptsanctionsremovaladmissibility of reportsdiscretionary powerindirect contemptdirect contempt
References
3
Case No. ADJ4415679 (OAK 0259031) ADJ2701101 (WCK0050594)
Regular
May 10, 2010

Stanley Sanders vs. REMEDY INTELLIGENT STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, OREGON STEEL MILLS, INC. dba NAPA PIPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, ruling that Napa Pipe, a self-insured special employer, is liable for applicant Stanley Sanders' workers' compensation benefits. Despite an agreement between the general employer (Remedy Temp) and Napa Pipe attempting to limit liability to Remedy Temp's insurer (Reliance), Napa Pipe's joint and several liability as a special employer cannot be contractually eliminated. Because Napa Pipe's self-insurance was not excluded for special employees and constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is relieved of its obligation to provide benefits following Reliance's insolvency. Therefore, Napa Pipe must now provide all workers' compensation benefits and administer the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanley SandersRemedy Intelligent StaffingCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyOregon Steel MillsNapa PipeADJ4415679ADJ2701101Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. PD-1500-15
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

Wright, Laci Rena

This document is the State of Texas's petition for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals, challenging the Eleventh Court of Appeals' decision to reverse Laci Rena Wright's convictions. Wright was convicted of two counts of injury to a child by omission for failing to provide medical care to her four-year-old daughter, B.R., after B.R. was sexually assaulted by Wright's boyfriend. The State argues that the Court of Appeals misapplied the legal sufficiency standard and that ample evidence supported the jury's finding that Wright recklessly caused serious mental impairment or injury to B.R. by consciously disregarding the risk of her inaction. The petition requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling and reinstate Wright's conviction for recklessly causing serious mental injury.

Child InjuryChild OmissionSexual AssaultRecklessnessMental ImpairmentLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewCausationMedical NeglectPTSD
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 3,200 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