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

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1982

Tarrant County v. Ashmore

This case addresses whether public officers have a 'property' interest in their positions protected by constitutional guarantees against governmental takings and due process. Justices of the peace and constables in Tarrant County sued the Tarrant County Commissioners Court after their offices were abolished due to redistricting, claiming violations of procedural due process and the right to complete their terms. The trial court and court of appeals ruled in favor of the officers, finding property rights and due process violations, and awarded them lost salaries. However, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that a public office is not 'property' in the constitutional sense, but rather a public trust, and therefore, vacating offices prior to term completion under statutory authority does not constitute a 'taking' without compensation. The Court also determined that while a public officer's interest deserves due process protection, the redistricting process was a legislative act, and the public hearings provided by the Commissioners Court were adequate, not requiring a trial-type adjudication of facts.

Public OfficeProperty RightsDue ProcessRedistrictingTarrant CountyTexas ConstitutionGovernmental TakingsLegislative ActionAdjudicative FactsPublic Trust
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orlik Ex Rel. Orlik v. Dutchess County

Plaintiff Sheryl Orlik, on behalf of herself and her son Jared, sued Dutchess County, the Dutchess County Department of Social Services (DSS), and several individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Orlik alleged violations of procedural due process, substantive due process, Fourth Amendment rights, and malicious prosecution stemming from the allegedly wrongful removal of Jared from her custody. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The court granted summary judgment, finding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the procedural due process claim was denied due to a brief removal period, the substantive due process claim lacked egregious official conduct, the Fourth Amendment claim was supported by a reasonable belief in probable cause, and the malicious prosecution claim was not clearly established for civil Family Court proceedings. The motion was deemed moot for defendant Allers as he was sued only in his official capacity.

Qualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentChild RemovalProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessFourth AmendmentMalicious ProsecutionSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesFoster Care
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

I.G. Second Generation Partners, L.P. v. Reade

This case concerns an appeal from multiple orders of the Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Alice Schlesinger. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, tortious interference with contract, and breach of implied contract. The court found that the malicious prosecution claim lacked probable cause, emphasizing that a prior judgment against the plaintiffs created a presumption of probable cause not overcome by subsequent reversal. The abuse of process claim failed as there was no indication of perverted use of process for a collateral advantage. Furthermore, the tortious interference claim was barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and proposed amendments for implied contract theories were properly denied due to a lack of meeting of the minds and absence of unjust enrichment.

malicious prosecutionabuse of processtortious interference with contractbreach of implied contractNoerr-Pennington doctrineprobable causeamendment of complaintunjust enrichmentaffirmationappellate review
References
17
Case No. 03-15-00446-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2015

Baxter Oil Service, Ltd. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

The trial court erred in granting the TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction. By the Order entered in connection with the Voda Site, the TCEQ attempts to impose monetary obligations on Baxter. Baxter is entitled to due process before it is deprived by the TCEQ of such property. Due process requires both adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Order fails to comport with due process because it does not provide adequate notice. Specifically, the Order not only fails to inform Baxter of its appellate remedies, but affirmatively misrepresents the finality of the Order. The Order also fails to inform Baxter of the possible scope of its liability, thereby leaving Baxter with insufficient information with which to determine whether to fight the Order. Because the Order fails to comport with due process, it is void. And because the Order is void, it may be collaterally attacked. Accordingly, the TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction, which argued that Baxter could not collaterally attack the Order by means of a summary judgment motion, was without merit.

Environmental RemediationDue Process ViolationAdministrative OrderCollateral AttackSuperfund LitigationTexas AppealsProperty DeprivationNotice RequirementsRegulatory EnforcementGovernmental Immunity
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen

The case involves a lawsuit against a doctor and hospitals concerning the detention and testing of an infant (A.E.) for suspected child abuse, and their role in the subsequent removal of all infant children from parental custody. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including procedural and substantive due process, and Fourth Amendment rights, alongside New York state common law claims for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, medical malpractice, and gross negligence. The court granted summary judgment on procedural due process, § 1983 malicious prosecution, state law malicious prosecution, and unlawful imprisonment claims, and dismissed substantive due process claims related to A.E.'s hospital detention. However, the court denied summary judgment for Infant Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, all plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims related to the court-ordered removal, and Infant Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice and gross negligence claims, deeming these suitable for trial.

child abusecivil rightsSection 1983Fourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentmedical malpracticegross negligencesummary judgmentqualified immunityparental rights
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 1988

Ingram v. Dallas County, Tex.

This case involves claims by Luella Ingram, a 54-year-old black female, against Dallas County, her former employer. Ingram alleged age discrimination under the ADEA, procedural and substantive due process violations, breach of employment contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deprivation of liberty interest in her reputation, following her discharge and rehire at a lower pay. The Court granted Ingram's motion for summary judgment on her procedural due process claim, finding she had a property interest in her job and was discharged without notice or a pre-termination hearing. It denied her substantive due process claim and granted the County's motion on the breach of employment contract. The Court denied the County's motion for summary judgment on Ingram's ADEA claim, finding her to be an 'employee' under the act and that she presented a prima facie case with evidence of pretext. Claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and deprivation of liberty interest were dismissed. Both parties' motions for sanctions were denied. The remaining issues for trial are damages for the procedural due process violation and the age discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationDue ProcessProperty InterestCivil ServiceEmployment ContractSummary JudgmentTexas LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePublic EmployeeWrongful Discharge
References
27
Case No. ADJ3714425 (FRE 0234250) ADJ896033 (FRE 0171714)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

MICHAEL WRIGHT vs. STAR MEDIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a WCJ's order that enforced a reimbursement order against Travelers Indemnity Company. The Board found the reimbursement order void *ab initio* due to procedural due process infirmities. Specifically, the "self-destruct" clause in the order did not comport with due process protections outlined in precedent cases like *Mitchell v. Golden Eagle Ins.*, failing to guarantee a review of objections or automatically void the order upon valid objection. Therefore, Travelers' due process rights were violated, necessitating the rescission of the WCJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for ReimbursementCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Cumulative Trauma InjuryAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)ApportionmentDue ProcessSelf-Destruct ClauseVoid Ab Initio
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15,483 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