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

Filippi v. Elmont Union Free School District Board of Education

Plaintiff Karen Filippi filed an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against her employer, the Elmont Union Free School District Board of Education, Superintendent Al Harper, and administrator Robert Geras. Defendants moved to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, the Law Offices of Steven A. Morelli and Eric Tilton, due to a conflict of interest. An associate at the Morelli Firm, Lorraine Ferrigno, also serves as the Vice President of the defendant Board of Education. The Court found a clear and unwaivable conflict of interest under New York State Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 and Rule 1.11, as Ferrigno had a fiduciary duty to the Board and personally received letters regarding Filippi's claims. Despite screening measures, the Court deemed them insufficient in the small, six-lawyer firm and concluded the conflict was non-waivable. The motion to disqualify both the Morelli Firm and Eric Tilton, due to his close affiliation, was granted.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationFiduciary DutyProfessional EthicsNew York State Rules of Professional ConductJudicial DiscretionSmall Law FirmScreening Procedures
References
34
Case No. ADJ2303350 (FRE 0230817)
Regular
Apr 05, 2013

Benjamin Martinez vs. Boghossian Raisin Packing, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of notices to dismiss their liens, but the Appeals Board dismissed their petition as interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. The Board granted removal on its own motion and intends to sanction the lien claimants' representative, AMR Group, and the lien claimants themselves (Hooty Services and Accutox) for frivolous and bad-faith actions. This intent to sanction stems from their attempt to challenge a procedural order clearly permitted by Appeals Board rules.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsNotice of IntentionDismissalRemovalSanctionsLabor CodeFinal OrderInterlocutory Decisions
References
7
Case No. 13-21-00068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2021

in Re Clear Diamond, Inc.

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Clear Diamond, Inc., seeking to compel the trial court to abate a second-filed lawsuit in Hidalgo County based on dominant jurisdiction, and to vacate an order denying a motion to transfer venue. The underlying litigation stems from a tractor-trailer collision in Crockett County, Texas, which resulted in the death of Flavio Zapata and property damage. Clear Diamond had previously filed a suit in McCulloch County, asserting proper venue. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, finding that the McCulloch County suit was inherently interrelated, commenced first, and still pending, thus acquiring dominant jurisdiction. The court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting the plea in abatement for the Hidalgo County case.

Dominant JurisdictionPlea in AbatementWrit of MandamusCivil ProcedureInterrelated LawsuitsFirst-Filed RuleVenue DisputeTractor-Trailer CollisionPersonal InjuryProperty Damage
References
34
Case No. 14-15-00695-cv
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2015

Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Center, L.P.

This is an appeal brief filed by Clear Lake Center, L.P. (Cross-Appellant/Appellee) against Garden Ridge, L.P. (Appellant/Cross-Appellee). The case stems from a dispute over alleged overpayments of management fees under a commercial real property lease. The trial court's judgment awarded Garden Ridge L.P. $594,700 in damages and $350,000 in attorneys' fees. Clear Lake Center, L.P. argues that Garden Ridge's claims are precluded by affirmative defenses such as waiver, ratification, novation, accord and satisfaction, and estoppel. They also contend that the trial court erred by excluding critical evidence and that the findings of liability and damages are unsustainable. Clear Lake Center, L.P. requests the appellate court to reverse the judgment and render judgment in its favor, or, in the alternative, remand the case for a new trial.

Contractual DisputeCommercial Real Estate LeaseManagement Fee OverchargesAffirmative DefensesEquitable EstoppelParol Evidence RuleBreach of ContractAttorneys' Fees CalculationStatute of LimitationsAppellate Procedure
References
69
Case No. 14-09-00950-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2010

Galveston Independent School District v. Clear Lake Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC

Clear Lake Rehabilitation Hospital, L.L.C. sued Galveston Independent School District (GISD) for breach of contract and violation of the federal Public Health Service Act (PHSA) concerning employee medical coverage. GISD appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The appellate court ruled that GISD's provision of health insurance was a governmental function, reversing the trial court's decision on the breach of contract claim and remanding it for Clear Lake to amend its pleadings to establish third-party beneficiary status. The court also found Clear Lake lacked independent standing as an "individual" under the PHSA, leading to the dismissal of that claim for want of jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityBreach of ContractPublic Health Service ActPHSACOBRAThird-Party BeneficiaryInterlocutory AppealSubject-Matter JurisdictionSchool District ImmunityHealth Insurance Coverage
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Media Group, LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC

Plaintiff Astra Media Group, LLC sued defendants Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC and the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) alleging federal and state antitrust violations, discrimination, and tortious interference. Astra claimed Clear Channel conspired with the TLC to ban its four-sided taxi rooftop advertising, engaged in predatory pricing, filed baseless lawsuits, and destroyed property. The court granted Clear Channel's motion to dismiss the antitrust and tortious interference claims, citing lack of plausible allegations and immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The TLC's motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claim was also granted due to Astra's failure to provide specific supporting facts. The court consequently dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

Antitrust LawSherman ActDonnelly ActTortious InterferencePredatory PricingNoerr-Pennington DoctrineEqual Protection ClauseMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentTaxi Advertising Regulation
References
55
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. 01 Civ. 2835
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Eastchester Union Free School District

Oswald Johnson, a 69-year-old cleaner, sued the Eastchester Union Free School District for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after his job location and hours were changed. The school district moved for summary judgment, arguing Johnson failed to establish an adverse employment action or an inference of discrimination. The court found that mere inconvenience from a lateral transfer and shift change, without a reduction in wages or altered job responsibilities, does not constitute a materially adverse employment action. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence did not support an inference of age discrimination, as other employees of varying ages also experienced job assignment changes, and the decision-maker was also over 40. The court also found the mandatory physical examination, which revealed Johnson's cataracts, was job-related and consistent with business necessity. Therefore, Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the court granted summary judgment to the Eastchester Union Free School District, dismissing the complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionDisparate TreatmentADEALateral TransferShift ChangePhysical ExaminationPrima Facie Case
References
29
Case No. ADJ8883051
Regular
Nov 03, 2015

ROSEMARY BARRIENTOS vs. SABAN FREE CLINIC, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision disallowing Western Imaging Services' (WIS) lien. The Board found WIS was exempt from photocopier registration requirements as it acted as an agent for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. This exemption, under Business and Professions Code Section 22451(b), negates the need for registration and bonding. The case was returned to the trial level for a new decision on the lien's compensability and fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451(b)Independent ContractorAgentState BarRegistration RequirementsBondingProfessional Photocopier
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,815 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