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

Cox v. Carey

The petitioner, a probationary cook, was terminated by the New York Department of Correctional Services despite a prior Human Rights Division ruling in her favor regarding sex discrimination in hiring. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this termination, alleging it was arbitrary and capricious. However, respondents sought dismissal, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted her administrative remedies, having also filed a second complaint with the State Human Rights Division concerning the termination. The court, presided over by Judge Aaron E. Klein, granted the respondents' motion, dismissing the petition. The judge ruled that the petitioner's allegations could be adequately reviewed through the ongoing Human Rights Division proceedings, emphasizing the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Article 78Probationary EmployeeEmployment TerminationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineCivil Service LawHuman Rights DivisionJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious ActionPublic Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Independent School District v. McCarty

Justice O’Neill dissents from the Court's decision, arguing that compliance with non-statutory administrative deadlines should not be a jurisdictional prerequisite for filing suit in cases like McCarty's. McCarty, an employee of Van Independent School District, sued for unlawful termination under the Texas Labor Code chapter 451 after filing a grievance with the Board of Trustees, albeit untimely. O'Neill asserts that McCarty exhausted his administrative remedies by requesting a hearing and a waiver of the deadline, and that the purpose of the exhaustion doctrine was met as the Board considered his grievance. The dissent distinguishes this case from Wilmer-Hutchins Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Sullivan, where the plaintiff failed to invoke grievance procedures entirely. O'Neill concludes that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over McCarty’s retaliatory discharge claim.

Jurisdictional PrerequisitesAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineRetaliatory DischargeTexas Labor CodeSchool District EmploymentGrievance ProceduresStatutory InterpretationWaiver of DeadlinesSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. 03-08-00205-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

Coastal Habitat Alliance v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Barry T. Smitherman, Chairman Kenneth W. Anderson, Jr., Commissioner Donna L. Nelson, Commissioner Texas Gulf Wind LLC PPM Energy, Inc. And AEP TCC

Justice Jan P. Patterson delivers a concurring and dissenting opinion, arguing that Coastal Habitat Alliance, a non-party, possesses an independent right to judicial review of the Public Utility Commission's final order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The dissent contends that the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) is silent regarding judicial review for non-parties, thereby permitting APA review. Justice Patterson asserts that the Alliance met administrative exhaustion requirements by filing a motion for reconsideration, thus obviating the need for a redundant motion for rehearing as a non-party. While concurring with the majority on the dismissal of claims under the UDJA and the absence of a vested property right for due process claims, the dissent challenges the suggestion that the Commission's denial of intervention is exclusively reviewable by mandamus, citing its inconsistency with the nature of discretionary acts and the exhaustion doctrine.

Administrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActJudicial ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesMandamusDue ProcessInterventionConcurring and Dissenting OpinionTexas Court of AppealsSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Insurance

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Slaughter

R.B. Slaughter, an employee of Basin Testers, Inc., tragically died after a fall in a company shower. His widow subsequently filed a claim for death benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. The insurance company appealed this decision, raising concerns about the admissibility of a res gestae statement and challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove Slaughter was within the course and scope of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the original judgment, concluding that ample independent evidence existed, even without the disputed statement, to establish Slaughter's eligibility for benefits under the personal convenience doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPersonal Convenience DoctrineCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentRes GestaeHearsayLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Amoco Production Co.

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blum v. General Electric Co.

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Case No. No. 21-0936
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2023

Exxonmobil Corporation v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa, and Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether an insurance policy incorporates payout limits from an underlying service agreement. The Court held that it does not, emphasizing that the doctrine of incorporation by reference requires a clear manifestation of intent. It clarified that an umbrella policy's 'broader coverage' clause refers to the types of risks covered, not the financial limits, and that umbrella policies serve to provide higher limits for risks already covered by exhausted primary policies. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, finding that ExxonMobil Corporation is an 'insured' under the umbrella policies and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationIncorporation by ReferenceUmbrella PolicyPrimary PolicyAdditional InsuredPayout LimitsService AgreementTexas Supreme CourtCommercial General Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schiappa v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

Daniel A. Schiappa, Sr. sued his former employer, Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (BSA), alleging age and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and refusal to rehire. BSA moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court granted BSA's motion, dismissing Schiappa's hostile work environment claim as time-barred, his retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, his Section 1983 claim because BSA is not a state actor, and his New York Human Rights Law claims due to the federal enclave doctrine. The only remaining claim is for unlawful termination under the ADEA.

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Enclave DoctrineRule 12(c) MotionJudgment on PleadingsADEARehabilitation ActSection 1983 Claims
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,608 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