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. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. E2014-00302-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2015

American Heritage Apartments, Inc. v. The Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority, Hamilton County, Tennessee

The plaintiff, American Heritage Apartments, Inc., challenged a monthly flat charge imposed by the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority (County WWTA) for sewer lateral repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County WWTA, finding no private right of action under the Utility District Law of 1937 (UDL). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, concluding the UDL was inapplicable as the County WWTA was formed under the Tennessee Water and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act (WWTA Act). The appellate court held that the WWTA Act implicitly provides a private right of action for ultra vires and contract claims. The court also affirmed the trial court's alternative ruling that class action certification for affected customers was appropriate.

Water UtilityWastewater TreatmentFlat Rate ChargeClass Action CertificationSummary Judgment ReversalPrivate Right of ActionUltra Vires ClaimGovernmental ImmunityUtility District LawWater and Wastewater Treatment Authority Act
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2013

Kemp v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

This case involves five current or former train conductors who sued their employer, CSX Transportation, Inc., alleging racial discrimination under federal and New York state law. Plaintiffs claimed disparate treatment in discipline and work opportunities, and a hostile work environment characterized by racial slurs and graffiti. The court addressed CSX's motions for summary judgment, which challenged the timeliness and merits of the claims. While some disparate treatment claims related to work opportunities were dismissed as time-barred, the court found sufficient material facts for hostile work environment claims and certain disparate treatment claims regarding suspensions and terminations to proceed to trial. Additionally, the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness was denied.

Racial discriminationHostile work environmentDisparate treatmentSummary judgmentEmployment lawCivil Rights Act of 1866New York Human Rights LawTrain conductorsAbsenteeism policyDisciplinary action
References
30
Case No. 08-11-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2014

Maria G. Thompson/Luis Marioni, D.C. v. Jaime Stolar, M.D., Alivio Medical Center, Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. and Luis Marioni, D.C./Maria G. Thompson

This multi-party appeal originated from a medical and chiropractic malpractice lawsuit filed by Maria G. Thompson against Dr. Jaime Stolar, Dr. Luis Marioni, and Alivio Medical Center and Alivio Treatment Centers, P.A. Thompson alleged negligence resulting in severe knee injuries, including infection and fusions, following injections and treatment. A jury found Dr. Stolar and Dr. Marioni negligent, awarding damages. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment against Dr. Marioni due to insufficient evidence of causation but affirmed the judgment against Dr. Stolar. The court also upheld the denial of Thompson's claims regarding damages and apparent agency against Alivio.

Medical MalpracticeChiropractic MalpracticeKnee InjuryKnee InfectionSpontaneous FusionSurgical FusionNegligenceCausationDamages AssessmentApparent Agency
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Porter Hedges, LLC

Jeanine V. Richardson, an African-American woman, sued her former employer, Porter Hedges, LLC, for employment discrimination based on race, color, and age, violating Title VII and the ADEA. Richardson alleged disparate treatment, disparate impact, pattern and practice discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The court granted Porter Hedges' motion for partial dismissal, finding Richardson failed to exhaust administrative remedies for disparate impact, pattern and practice discrimination, and hostile work environment claims. Additionally, the retaliation claim was dismissed as untimely, as it did not relate back to the original complaint. Only the disparate treatment claim remains to be litigated.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationAge DiscriminationTitle VIIADEADisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. 10-02036-F
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

Hernandez v. City of Corpus Christi

Plaintiff Josie Hernandez sued her former employer, the City of Corpus Christi, for employment discrimination and retaliation. She alleged discrimination based on gender, national origin, race, and age, claiming she was passed over for promotions and experienced a hostile work environment. She also brought claims for constructive discharge, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and breach of contract, and sought declaratory judgment regarding the release of her birthdate. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims related to conduct before November 20, 2007, hostile work environment, disparate impact, constructive discharge, retaliation, and declaratory judgment. However, claims for disparate treatment and breach of contract, along with discrimination claims for conduct after November 20, 2007, were retained for trial.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VII of Civil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActTexas Commission on Human Rights ActFailure to PromoteGender DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace Discrimination
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff, identified as Cooper, filed an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) against the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and his supervisors, Bryan F. Rudes and Richard A. Lallier. Cooper alleged he was demoted and terminated based on age (disparate treatment) and that OMH's policies had a disparate impact on employees over 60. He worked for OMH from 1975 to 1992, rising to Director of Quality Assurance before being reassigned and subsequently laid off at age 63 during a reduction in force. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim, citing material issues of fact regarding pretext, as Cooper's duties were transferred to a younger employee and his new role was vaguely defined and later eliminated. However, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the disparate impact claim due to insufficient evidence and legal uncertainty.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactSummary JudgmentReduction in ForcePretextADEALayoffDemotion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spurlock v. Nynex

Plaintiff Sean Martin Spurlock filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against NYNEX, alleging disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation based on race under Title VII, disability discrimination under the ADA, and violations of the FMLA, along with similar claims under the New York Human Rights Law. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss the case on two grounds: lack of subject matter jurisdiction (treated as failure to state a claim) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court dismissed the Title VII disparate impact claim and the ADA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the FMLA claim for insufficient pleading, granting leave to amend only the FMLA claim. However, the plaintiff's Title VII disparate treatment and retaliation claims, along with corresponding state law discrimination claims, survived the motion to dismiss.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADAFMLANew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissAdministrative Exhaustion
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renaldi v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.

Richard J. Renaldi, a former branch manager at Central Trust Company (acquired by M&T in 1992), sued Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (M&T) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL). Renaldi alleged age discrimination following his reassignment to a less prestigious business development officer position in January 1993 and subsequent termination in March 1993, claiming the new role was a sham to justify his dismissal. M&T moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred and Renaldi failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate treatment or disparate impact. The court denied M&T's motion regarding the disparate treatment claim, citing factual disputes over timeliness and the nature of the job action. However, the court granted M&T's motion to dismiss the disparate impact claim, concluding Renaldi's allegations described intentional discrimination rather than a facially neutral policy.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationDemotionSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactADEANew York State Human Rights LawPerformance Review
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 3,310 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