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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03449
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Alpert

Sara Alpert, an attorney, was disciplined for intentionally dishonest conduct related to her failure to file H-1B visa applications. She made false representations to her law firm, fabricated documents, and backdated filings to conceal her inaction. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department and Alpert jointly moved for discipline by consent, requesting a six-month suspension. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion, suspending Alpert for six months, citing her lack of diligence, deception, and mitigating factors such as her youth, inexperience, remorse, and a serious medical condition that led to fear of losing health insurance.

attorney disciplineprofessional misconductH-1B visaimmigration lawfrauddeceitmisrepresentationlack of diligenceattorney suspensionethical violations
References
6
Case No. M2013-01235-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2014

Kimberly A. Sparkman v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Labor And Workforce Development, and First Tennessee Bank, N. A.

This appeal concerns the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to Kimberly A. Sparkman. She was terminated from her employment at First Tennessee Bank, N.A., for refusing an alcohol test after her supervisors detected alcohol on her. Sparkman had previously been warned that refusal to take such a test would result in termination. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Appeals Tribunal, the Board of Review, and the Chancery Court all found her refusal to constitute work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from benefits. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the smell of alcohol provided a reasonable basis for the test request and that her refusal, despite prior warning, was work-related misconduct under state law.

unemployment benefitsworkplace misconductalcohol testingrefusal to testemployment terminationjudicial reviewadministrative decisionTennessee lawappellate reviewreasonable suspicion
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01338
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Pierre

This case involves W. Marilynn Pierre, a suspended attorney, and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Pierre was previously suspended in 2017 due to admissions of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds, using her escrow account as an operating account, and evading tax liens. She also converted/misappropriated guardianship funds and failed to satisfy a judgment. Now, the parties have filed a joint motion for discipline by consent, stipulating to facts that confirm violations of rules 1.15 (a), (b), (e), and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mitigating factors include her cooperation, current work as a social worker, restitution efforts, and mental health issues (bulimia, depression, ADD) affecting her practice, for which she is undergoing monitoring. The Court grants the joint motion and imposes a five-year suspension, retroactive to August 8, 2017.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsattorney disciplineescrow account misusecommingling fundsmisappropriationtax liensmental healthmitigating factorssuspension
References
8
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. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. 10-06-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2008

Navasota Resources, L.P. v. First Source Texas, Inc., First Source Gas, LP, Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC F/K/A Bossier Basin, LLC, First Texas Gas, LP, First Source Bossier LLC, Gastar Exploration, LTD., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration LP & Chesapeake Operating. Inc

Navasota Resources, L.P. initiated a lawsuit to enforce a preferential right clause within a joint operating agreement with First Source Texas, Inc. and related entities concerning oil and gas interests. The trial court granted summary judgment for First Source and Chesapeake Energy Corp., denying Navasota's motion. On appeal, the court examined whether the preferential right was triggered by a multi-asset 'package deal' and if Navasota was obligated to accept all additional terms. The appellate court determined that the preferential right was indeed invoked, and Navasota was not required to agree to unrelated conditions like stock purchases or entry into an Area of Mutual Interest. Consequently, the court found a binding contract was formed, the preferential right provision was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and rejected defenses of mistake or unconscionability. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, with judgment rendered in favor of Navasota for breach of contract and specific performance, and the case was remanded for determination of attorney's fees and revenues.

Oil and GasPreferential RightJoint Operating AgreementSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceRestraint on AlienationPackage DealAppellate ReviewContractual Option
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bobby Duncan v. First Texas Homes and First Texas Homes, Inc.

Bobby Duncan, an employee of First Texas Homes, sustained injuries after falling from stairs on a construction site. He alleged negligence, citing unsafe working conditions and failure to inspect the premises, particularly due to insufficient clearance on the stair platform that violated OSHA and company safety standards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Texas. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding First Texas's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and if First Texas's negligence was the proximate cause of Duncan's injuries. The court emphasized that an employee's awareness of a defect does not necessarily eliminate the employer's duty in a nonsubscriber case.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerOccupational SafetyConstruction Site InjuryHazardous ConditionForeseeabilityProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 8,544 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