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

In re B.H. Children

This case addresses the Family Court's authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of foster care agency employees in a child protective proceeding. MercyFirst, a foster care agency, sought an order of protection against a respondent father to safeguard its caseworkers, L.S. and S.H., from alleged threats and harassment. Presiding Judge Emily M. Olshansky ruled that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such an order, as New York statutes do not explicitly extend protection to foster care agency employees in this context. Consequently, the agency's motion for an order of protection was denied, and a subsequent motion for contempt related to a temporary order, which the court found void due to lack of jurisdiction, was also denied.

Family Court JurisdictionOrder of Protection AuthorityChild Protective ServicesFoster Care Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation New YorkContempt of Court GroundsLimited Jurisdiction CourtsLegal StandingAgency Employees RightsJudicial Review of Statutes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andre v. City of New York

This case addresses two related actions concerning the proposed transfer of privately-owned bus company operations to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the transfer of claims management to AIG Claim Services, Inc. The plaintiffs, including nonunion employees and the bus companies, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the transfer without compliance with employee protective arrangements established by a 1975 operating agreement and subsequent certifications. The court denied motions by the City of New York and the MTA to dismiss the complaints, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and stated valid causes of action. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the proposed takeover until a determination by the Department of Labor and ordering the immediate restoration of claims management work to the bus companies, citing violations of employee protection agreements and procurement laws.

Employee Protective ArrangementsBus TransportationPublic ProcurementPreliminary InjunctionThird-Party BeneficiaryStanding to SueGovernment ContractsUrban Mass Transportation ActCollective Bargaining RightsClaims Management Transfer
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. 2016-03-0663
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2018

Wright, Kenneth v. National Strategic Protective Services, LLC

Kenneth M. Wright, an employee of National Strategic Protective Services, LLC, sustained a work-related neck injury on September 19, 2014. The Court presided over a Compensation Hearing to determine appropriate permanent impairment and disability benefits. While Mr. Wright sought permanent total disability, the Court denied this claim, finding his employment options significantly limited but not totally absent. The Court concluded Mr. Wright established entitlement to extraordinary relief, awarding him 275 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits, based on a 24% impairment rating and his certified inability to perform his pre-injury occupation. Additionally, Mr. Wright was awarded future medical benefits, with Dr. David Hauge remaining the authorized treating physician.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityExtraordinary ReliefNeck InjurySpinal FusionRadiculopathyImpairment RatingVocational DisabilityMedical TestimonyNeurosurgeon
References
9
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asset Protection & Security Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 200 United

The Union appealed from an order that partially vacated an arbitration award. The arbitrator had determined that Asset Protection & Security Services, LP (APSS) lacked just cause to discharge an employee and ordered reinstatement with back pay. The Supreme Court vacated the award entirely. This appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator's finding of no just cause for termination, thereby reversing that part of the order. However, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by reinstating the employee and awarding back pay and benefits, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) limitations on remedies in cases involving ICE-mandated actions. Two judges dissented in part.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJust CauseArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic PolicyReinstatementBack PayCPLR
References
7
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broadhurst v. Employees Retirement System

Nancy Broadhurst, a Child Protective Services specialist, sought occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after suffering a back injury. The Board of Trustees for ERS denied her application, concluding her disability did not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disability," specifically the requirement that the injury result from an "inherent risk or hazard peculiar to a duty." Broadhurst appealed the decision, arguing the Board misinterpreted the statute and that her injury, though occurring while sitting in a chair, was related to the increased risks of her job. The district court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the act causing the injury (sitting in a chair) was not peculiar to her duties, and thus she did not satisfy the statutory criteria.

Occupational DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Government CodeInherent RiskPeculiar HazardState Employee BenefitsBack Injury
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,488 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