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

Equal Access for El Paso, Inc. v. Hawkins

This case involves Medicaid recipients, providers, and an association in El Paso County, Texas, suing the Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), Albert Hawkins. Plaintiffs allege that HHSC's low Medicaid payment rates have led to inadequate access to medical services for El Paso Medicaid recipients, violating several provisions of the Medicaid Act, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The Court found that Recipient Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Equal Access had standing for claims under the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, but Provider Plaintiffs did not have third-party standing for their patients. All other claims under the Medicaid Act, Equal Protection Clause, and most of the Supremacy Clause claim were dismissed. The Court ultimately found only one cognizable claim: Recipient Plaintiffs' claim that HHSC's low payment rates violate the Equal Access Provision. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal due to substantial grounds for difference of opinion on controlling questions of law, particularly concerning standing and the private right of action under the Equal Access Provision post-Gonzaga.

Medicaid ActHealthcare AccessPayment RatesStanding DoctrinePrivate Right of ActionSupremacy ClauseEqual Protection ClauseRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionInterlocutory Appeal
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quill v. Koppell

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York Penal Law §§ 125.15(3) and 120.30, which criminalize aiding suicide. Physician plaintiffs argue these laws violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to physicians assisting mentally competent, terminally ill adults seeking to avoid severe suffering. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of these statutes. Defendants moved for dismissal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding no fundamental liberty interest in physician-assisted suicide under the Due Process Clause and no violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court reasoned that the state has legitimate interests in preserving life and can distinguish between refusing medical treatment and actively assisting suicide.

Physician-assisted suicideDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentTerminal illnessRight to diePreliminary injunctionSummary judgmentCriminal statutesNew York Penal Law
References
16
Case No. 14-10-01098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2011

the City of Houston v. Joslyn M. Johnson, Individually and as for the Estate of Rodney Johnson

Joslyn Johnson sued the City of Houston after her husband, a Houston police officer, was killed in the line of duty. She alleged the City was grossly negligent for failing to implement policies to safeguard officers during traffic stops and that the City’s immunity from suit for such claims violated the equal-protection clause of the state constitution. The trial court denied the City's pleas to the jurisdiction regarding these claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the City is immune from suit for gross negligence and exemplary damages. The court also found Joslyn's equal-protection claim invalid, stating that governmental immunity prevents suits against governmental entities even if they could be brought against private parties, and the absence of a waiver of immunity is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. The case was remanded with directions to sever and dismiss with prejudice Joslyn’s allegations of gross negligence and violations of the state constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityGross NegligenceEqual ProtectionTexas Tort Claims ActWorkers' Compensation ActExemplary DamagesPlea to the JurisdictionPolice ProtectionMunicipal Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2004

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty v. New York

This action was initiated by parents of homeless children in Suffolk County, New York, to enforce the McKinney-Vento Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs allege a systematic failure by the defendants to ensure homeless children's access to education, particularly regarding enrollment and transportation. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, affirming that the McKinney-Vento Act creates individually enforceable rights and that the Equal Protection Clause claim warrants heightened scrutiny. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, concluding that the class fulfilled all requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2). A bench trial is scheduled to begin on October 27, 2004.

McKinney-Vento ActEqual Protection ClauseHomeless ChildrenEducation RightsClass ActionClass CertificationMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 23Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Suffolk County
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1995

Schaeffer v. City of New York

Plaintiff Allen Schaeffer, a former HRA employee, sued the City of New York and HRA employees for alleged retaliation after filing a complaint with the Department of Investigations (DOI) concerning HRA's disciplinary procedures. His claims included violations of First Amendment rights (protected speech) and the Equal Protection Clause (whistleblower policy), as well as a state claim for unpaid wages. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding Schaeffer's speech not constitutionally protected as it pertained to internal office affairs, and lacking causation for alleged retaliation. The Equal Protection claim also failed as whistleblowers are not a protected class. The court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law claim.

First Amendment RightsEqual Protection ClauseWhistleblower PolicyRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentPublic Employee SpeechCausal ConnectionAdverse Employment ActionGovernment DiscretionInternal Affairs Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters Within New York v. New York

This case involves eleven plaintiff labor organizations challenging Section 375 of Chapter 190 of the Laws of New York of 1990, which implemented a lag payroll system for nonjudicial employees of the Unified Court System. The plaintiffs argued that this law unconstitutionally impaired their collective bargaining agreements and violated the Contract Clause, Equal Protection, and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunction and summary judgment. The court found no contractual impairment, citing a statutory provision requiring legislative action for compensation agreements. It concluded that the lag payroll was a reasonable and necessary measure to address the state's fiscal crisis, and that the statute satisfied the rational basis test for equal protection and due process claims. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.

Lag Payroll SystemContract ImpairmentEqual ProtectionDue ProcessCollective BargainingSummary JudgmentPreliminary InjunctionFiscal PolicyState EmployeesJudicial System
References
11
Case No. C.A. No. H-78-1831 (Consolidated Multidistrict Litigation)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1980

In Re Alien Children Education Litigation

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas Education Code Ann. tit. 2, § 21.031, which prohibited the use of state funds to educate undocumented children and allowed local school districts to exclude them or charge tuition. Plaintiffs, undocumented school-age children, argued the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by federal law, and conflicted with international law. Judge SEALS of the Southern District of Texas found the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court determined that access to education is a fundamental right, and the statute imposed an absolute deprivation of this right on undocumented children, who are "persons within the jurisdiction" of the state. The state's arguments regarding fiscal integrity and deterrence of immigration were found not to be compelling governmental interests. The court issued a permanent injunction against the Commissioner of Education, preventing the implementation of the challenged sections of the Texas Education Code.

Undocumented ChildrenPublic Education AccessEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentState Statute UnconstitutionalityImmigration Status DiscriminationFundamental Rights (Education)Judicial ScrutinyFiscal Policy (State)Class Action
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority

Plaintiffs (American Atheists, Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, and Jane Everhart) sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and state constitutions, challenging the display of a steel cross artifact in the National September 11 Museum. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Foundation's actions were attributable to the state. However, applying the Lemon test, the court determined that displaying the cross had a secular purpose, did not endorse religion, and did not create excessive entanglement. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and state law claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that the state law claims failed for various reasons, including non-applicability to the bi-state agency or failure to comply with notice requirements. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSummary JudgmentState ActionReligious SymbolSeptember 11 MemorialMuseum ExhibitGovernment FundingConstitutional Law
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heap v. County of Schenectady

Plaintiff Kathleen Heap sued the County of Schenectady and Robert McEvoy, alleging sex discrimination regarding promotion and pay, in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York Executive Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the Personnel Administrator position was policy-making and exempt from Title VII, and that Heap failed to establish prima facie cases for her claims. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the claims of pattern and practice discrimination, Title VII pay discrimination, and Equal Pay Act violations. However, the court denied summary judgment on the claims of discrimination in promotion, Equal Protection, and New York Executive Law, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial.

Gender DiscriminationFailure to PromoteEqual Pay ActTitle VIISection 1983Equal Protection ClauseNew York Executive LawSummary Judgment MotionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
34
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,793 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