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. No. 08-00-00380-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Ieremia, Mekeli v. State

Mekeli Ieremia, Director of Risk Management for Socorro Independent School District, was convicted of theft over $200,000 and misapplication of fiduciary property over $200,000. An internal audit revealed a significant increase in workers' compensation fund expenditures, primarily due to numerous, repetitious, and often duplicate invoices from companies operated by Michael Rhinehardt for employee background checks. Ieremia was found to have authorized these payments, misrepresented their necessity and value, and bypassed established protocols, leading to a substantial depletion of the fund's reserves. The Court of Appeals reviewed Ieremia's arguments regarding the denial of his motion to quash and the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for both charges. The court found that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support both the theft and misapplication of fiduciary property convictions.

TheftMisapplication of Fiduciary PropertyEmployee Background ChecksWorkers' Compensation FundFraudFinancial MisconductPublic ServantSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEl Paso County
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2000

T. W. v. City of New York

This personal injury action arises from the sexual assault of an infant plaintiff by Anthony Monroe, an employee of the Police Athletic League (PAL) at a community center. Plaintiffs sued PAL for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for PAL, dismissing the complaint. However, the appellate court modified the decision, denying summary judgment on the claims of negligent hiring and retention, and negligent supervision of the children. The court found that factual issues existed regarding PAL's duty to investigate Monroe's criminal background, given its knowledge of a prior conviction, and its duty to supervise the children.

Negligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSexual AssaultPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCriminal Background CheckEmployer LiabilityProximate CauseYouth Programs
References
8
Case No. E2009-02349-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2011

In Re: Demitrus M.T.

This wrongful death action was filed by the parents and brother of six-month-old Demitrus M. T. against the Tennessee Claims Commission, alleging negligence by the Tennessee Department of Child Services (DCS). Demitrus drowned while in the care of Sherika Hamilton, who was designated as a placement caretaker in a DCS safety plan. The Claimants contended DCS was negligent for failing to investigate Hamilton's background and for not responding to a report of child endangerment against her. The Appeals Court affirmed the Claims Commission's jurisdiction over the 'care, custody and control' claim but reversed the admission of certain case recordings as hearsay. The court vacated the dismissal on the merits, remanding the case for a factual determination on whether DCS was indeed alerted to the child endangerment charge.

Wrongful DeathChild NeglectDCSForeseeabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionPublic Records ExceptionChild Safety PlanCare, Custody, and Control
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1971

Commarato v. McLeod

The President of Local 400 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election, pending the final disposition of unfair labor practice charges. The Regional Director opposed this, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. The court reviewed the factual background, including a postponed election, subsequent unfair labor practice charges filed by unions against Art Steel Company, Inc., and the Board's decision to proceed with the election despite its own 'blocking charge rule'. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary order to proceed with the election, as it did not fall under the narrow exception of the Board acting in direct contravention of a specific statutory mandate. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActRepresentation ElectionPreliminary InjunctionJudicial ReviewNLRB JurisdictionUnfair Labor PracticesBlocking Charge RuleStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. 05-15-00796-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Christopher Click and Jerry Lindemann v. Transport Workers Union Local 556

Chris Click and Jerry Lindemann, as appellants, filed this brief with the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas. They are appealing a judgment from the 116th Civil District Court of Dallas County in their case against Transport Workers Union Local 556. The appellants contend that the trial court, presided over by Judge Tonya Parker, erred by not including specific monetary awards for them in the final judgment, despite having previously granted their motions for summary judgment. They argue they are entitled to pre and post-judgment interest, court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, citing legal precedents regarding the reimbursement of union officers who successfully defend against litigation. The brief provides a detailed procedural history and factual background of the dispute within the union, asserting that their actions were not a breach of fiduciary duty as alleged by the union.

Civil AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to Modify JudgmentFiduciary DutyUnion OfficersLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Attorneys' FeesCourt CostsPre-judgment InterestPost-judgment Interest
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Case No. 03-07-00646-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2009

Zavian Thomas v. State

Zavian Thomas was convicted of injury to a child and sentenced to 55 years in prison. He appealed, arguing that his statements to police should have been suppressed, the evidence was factually insufficient, and the trial court erred by refusing a hearing on his motions for new trial. The Court of Appeals reviewed the suppression ruling, noting police did not tell Thomas he was not free to leave, and he was allowed to leave when he asked. Regarding factual sufficiency, conflicting medical testimonies were presented on whether the child's death was due to shaken baby syndrome or choking. The court deferred to the jury's resolution of this conflicting evidence. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial hearing, as Thomas's motions lacked affidavits and factual substantiation. The conviction was affirmed.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewMotion to SuppressCustodial InterrogationMiranda WarningsFactual SufficiencyInjury to a ChildShaken Baby SyndromeMedical TestimonyMotion for New Trial
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Miller

Plaintiff, a gas pump attendant, was injured when a customer's car, operated by a co-worker, suddenly moved forward, striking him. The defendant customer had left her car running and unattended. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The defendant then initiated a third-party action against the co-worker and the service station owner. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing no factual issues existed and failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied this motion, finding triable factual issues. This appeal affirmed Special Term's decision, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also clarified that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) did not bar the action against the third-party owner for her own negligence, and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) was not applicable as the car was not "unattended" under the statute.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate CauseDuty of CareAppellate Court Decision
References
12
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 2,525 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