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

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. 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

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. 13-05-729-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Xavier Duenez and Irene Duenez

The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was initiated by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (BCBS) against Xavier and Irene Duenez, seeking to recover a portion of a third-party settlement the Duenezes had obtained. BCBS was acting as ERS's administering firm in this action. ERS contended that it possessed exclusive jurisdiction over such subrogation disputes under the Texas Employees Group Benefits Act. However, the appellate court meticulously reviewed the ERS Act and found no explicit statutory language granting ERS exclusive authority over subrogation claims. The court concluded that subrogation rights in this context were derived from a contractual Plan Document, not from statute, and therefore, the Legislature had not conferred exclusive authority to ERS to resolve these disputes. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order denying ERS's motion to dismiss, thereby retaining jurisdiction.

SubrogationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawInterlocutory AppealInsurance BenefitsHealthSelect of TexasDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
12
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

John Klumb, Veronica McClelland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and the City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Barbara Chelette, David L. Long, Lenard Polk, Roy Sanchez, and Lonnie Vara

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natale v. Central Parking Systems of New York, Inc.

The case involves trustees of Health and Pension Funds (Plaintiffs) suing Central Parking System of New York, Inc. and Sonya Mitchell (Defendants) under ERISA for alleged unpaid contributions for certain employees. The Plaintiffs claimed an audit revealed unpaid contributions, arguing that fourteen disputed employees (managers, assistant managers, and supervisors) were covered by Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs). The Defendants moved for partial summary judgment, contending these employees were supervisory, had 'Status Authority,' and were thus excluded from the CBAs. The Court granted the Defendant's motion, finding that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that contributions were owed for the disputed employees, as their evidence (audit report, deposition testimony, and previous contributions) was insufficient to prove these employees lacked Status Authority or were covered by the CBAs.

ERISAEmployee ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementsSummary JudgmentSupervisory EmployeesFiduciary DutyPayroll AuditUnpaid ContributionsLabor LawRule 56
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local Union No. 1442

This case, heard by Justice YOUNG of the Texas Civil Appeals, involved several labor unions and individual public employees challenging the Dallas Public School District and its Superintendent, Dr. W. T. White. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Section 6, Article 5154c, V.A.C.S., concerning the right of public employees to present grievances through non-striking representatives. The District had refused to acknowledge the unions' capacity to act as such representatives. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees and unions, affirming their right to present grievances through their chosen representatives, provided they did not claim the right to strike. The appellate court upheld this decision, overruling the appellants' arguments against the scope of union representation for grievances.

Right to Work LawPublic EmployeesLabor UnionsGrievance ProceduresDeclaratory Judgment ActCollective BargainingRight to StrikeStatutory InterpretationClass ActionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1980

In re the Claim of Caruso

This case concerns an appeal by Professional Data Services, Inc. from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a claimant, who worked from home as a key punch operator for Professional Data Services, Inc., was an employee rather than an independent contractor, making her eligible for benefits. The employer provided equipment, controlled work distribution, and set deadlines, which were key factors in determining the employment relationship. The court rejected the employer's argument that a signed contract classifying the claimant as an independent contractor was binding, citing concerns about duress and the Industrial Commissioner's statutory authority to determine employment status under Labor Law § 597. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance benefitsLabor LawSubstantial evidenceContractual agreementDuressAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board decisionKey punch operator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2011

County of Rockland v. Civil Service Employee Ass'n

The County of Rockland initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration sought by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. The grievances arose from the County's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement by assigning per diem employees instead of regular full- and part-time staff. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, permanently staying the arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievances and determined that the parties' collective bargaining agreement covered the specific dispute. Furthermore, the issue of the timeliness of the arbitration demands was deemed to be a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementCPLR article 75grievancepublic sectorPERBCivil Service Lawemployer practicesappellate reviewlabour law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 13,100 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