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. NO. 03-13-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O. v. David Mattax, Texas Commissioner of Insurance Ryan Brannan, Commissioner of Workers' Compensation And Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O., appealed an administrative penalty of $15,000 and an order to attend an educational course for violating reporting and record-keeping requirements as a 'designated doctor' with the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The audit focused on the timely submission and electronic transmission of DWC Form-69s. McWatt argued that the ALJ and Commissioner lacked authority, retroactively applied rules, misinterpreted Rule 130.1 by holding him responsible for his employer Concentra's failures, and arbitrarily assessed penalties. The court found that the Division had proper authority for the audit and that Rule 130.1 held McWatt ultimately responsible for compliance, irrespective of his employer's role in filing. Consequently, the trial court's judgment affirming the ALJ's monetary penalty and the Commissioner's non-monetary sanction was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewReporting RequirementsRecord KeepingAdministrative PenaltiesMedical EvaluationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingDesignated Doctor
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rochester Independent Workers & General Dynamics/Electronics Division

This case involves a motion by the Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 (Union) to compel arbitration against General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Company). The grievance concerned a reduction in force, lay-offs, and the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit. The Union claimed violations of the Recognition and Management Rights articles of their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that its right to subcontract and assign work was an exclusive management prerogative explicitly excluded from arbitration by the agreement. The court, referencing Federal precedents, determined that the agreement's language clearly excluded such matters from arbitration and, therefore, denied the Union's motion to compel arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsubcontractingmanagement rightsgrievance procedurelay-offunionfederal court decisionscontract interpretation
References
10
Case No. 03-21-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2023

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation// Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

This declaratory-judgment action involves a dispute between the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Division) and insurance carriers, Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust, regarding rules for workers’ compensation supplemental income benefits (SIB). The carriers challenged the validity of a Division rule, 28 Texas Administrative Code Section 130.102, which governs eligibility for SIB, specifically concerning the "work search efforts" requirement for injured employees. The district court had ruled a section of the rule (d)(1)(D) invalid and another section (f) inapplicable to independent job seekers. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding that Section (d)(1)(D) was invalid, concluding it was facially valid. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling that Section (f)'s "work search contacts" language does not qualitatively apply to independent job seekers, but only for setting a numerical standard. Additionally, the court found certain parts of the Division's preamble to the rule and its Appeals Panel Decision Manual to contain invalid ad hoc rules, reversing the district court on this point, while affirming that an Appeals Panel Decision and the SIB application form were not ad hoc rules. The court also found the exclusion of an expert witness to be harmless.

Workers’ CompensationSupplemental Income BenefitsAgency Rule ValidityAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActionStatutory InterpretationWork Search RequirementsAd Hoc RulesAppellate ProcedureTexas Government Code
References
22
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03130 [238 AD3d 589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Empanada Fresca LLC v. 1 BK St. Corp.

Empanada Fresca LLC (tenant) and Jose Rodriguez (guarantor) appealed a Supreme Court order regarding their lease dispute with 1 BK Street Corp. (landlord), which involved claims of fraud, breach of lease, and a "good guy" guaranty. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the tenant's claims for fraudulent inducement, rescission, promissory estoppel, and breach of implied covenant, deeming them duplicative or inapplicable. However, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the guarantor, Jose Rodriguez, thereby dismissing the landlord's counterclaim for breach of guaranty. This modification was based on the finding that the guarantor had substantially complied with the terms of the "good guy" guaranty, despite a three-day short notice to vacate, as the landlord suffered no prejudice. Additionally, the Appellate Division upheld the tenant's right to amend its complaint to seek consequential damages, citing public policy against parties avoiding liability for gross negligence.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseFraudulent InducementBreach of LeaseGood Guy GuarantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRent AbatementPre-Existing ConditionsGas Service Interruption
References
15
Case No. 03-13-00616-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2015

Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This document is a mandate issued by the Third Court of Appeals in Texas to the Civil District Clerk of Travis County. It pertains to case number 03-13-00616-CV, styled Vista Medical Center Hospital v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and Texas Mutual Insurance Company. The mandate signifies the conclusion of the appellate proceedings. The letter, dated March 2015 and filed on March 12, 2015, also includes the return of original exhibits, specifically Plaintiff's exhibit 1 (CD, administrative record) and Court's exhibit 1 (list of cases set for hearing 5/30/13). It is signed by Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk of the Court.

MandateAppellate CourtWorkers' CompensationTravis CountyCourt of AppealsThird DistrictCase ConclusionExhibit ReturnCivil ProcedureTexas Law
References
0
Case No. 03-09-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

Vista Healthcare, Inc. v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund And the Travelers Insurance Companies

This case involves Vista Healthcare, Inc.'s challenge to a district court judgment regarding a workers' compensation medical benefits reimbursement dispute. Vista, an ambulatory surgical center, argued for reimbursement of its "usual and customary" charges, while Texas Mutual Insurance Company applied a methodology based on Medicare rates. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Division rules governing reimbursement rates, specifically rule 134.1, in the absence of specific medical fee guidelines. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Division's interpretation that "fair and reasonable" reimbursement incorporates all standards from labor code section 413.011, including ensuring quality of medical care and achieving effective cost control, and found the rule not unconstitutionally vague.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsReimbursement DisputeAmbulatory Surgical CenterFee GuidelinesRule InterpretationConstitutional VaguenessTexas Labor CodeAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial Review
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 9,297 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