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
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
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. 13-99-379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2000

Worker's Compensation Division v. Cavazos, Maria

Maria Cavazos was injured on the job at the Rio Grande State Center and a jury found her totally and permanently incapacitated. The Workers' Compensation Division appealed the judgment, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of total and permanent incapacity, noting that such disability can be established by the worker's testimony alone. However, the court reversed the trial court's order regarding the payment of Dr. Mireles' deposition fees, applying a new rule (Tex. R. Civ. P. 195.7) that mandates the retaining party (Cavazos) to pay for expert witness fees for depositions taken after January 1, 1999.

Workers' CompensationTotal IncapacityPermanent IncapacityExpert Witness FeesDeposition CostsRules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Law
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Rehabilitation & Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Appellants, providers of rehabilitation services, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for unpaid Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) incentive payments, claiming statutory entitlement to a ten percent incentive for services in designated areas. The Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Division) intervened, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over such medical fee disputes. Both defendants argued appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that HPSA incentive payments are medical fees subject to the Division's Medical Dispute Resolution (MDR) process, thereby granting the Division exclusive jurisdiction. The dismissal was upheld due to the appellants' failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Medical Fee DisputeJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesHealth Professional Shortage AreaStatutory InterpretationExhaustion of RemediesAppellate ReviewInsurance CarrierHealth Care ProvidersTexas Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
Case No. W2018-00218-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Memphis Light Gas & Water Division v. Tykena Watson

This appeal addresses whether nurse case management fees are recoverable as part of an employer’s workers’ compensation subrogation lien under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-112. The trial court ruled against the recoverability of these fees and also determined that the employer’s subrogation lien should be reduced by attorney’s fees awarded to the employee’s attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that nurse case management services are primarily for the employer's benefit, not the employee's, and that the employee's attorney was entitled to a pro rata fee reduction from the subrogation lien due to the employer's lack of active participation in the tort action.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienNurse Case Management FeesAttorney's FeesThird-Party Tort ActionEmployer BenefitsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,624 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