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

Griffith v. STEINER WILLIAMSBURG, LLC

Plaintiffs Anastasia Griffith and Alan Weissman sued Steiner Williamsburg, LLC, seeking to revoke their condominium purchase agreements and recover deposits, alleging Steiner violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA). Steiner countered that plaintiffs breached the agreements and sought to retain deposits. The central issue was whether ILSA's 100-lot exemption applied, depending on if it was determined at the time of purchase or later. The court ruled that the exemption's applicability is determined when the purchaser signs the agreement. As Steiner's condominium had 123 non-exempt units at the time of purchase and no property report was provided, the court found Steiner in violation of ILSA. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted, and Steiner's motion was denied.

Interstate Land SalesFull Disclosure ActCondominium PurchaseDeveloper ObligationsProperty ReportContract RevocationStatutory InterpretationILSA ExemptionSummary JudgmentConsumer Protection
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rudolf Steiner Fellowship Foundation v. De Luccia

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Chestnut Ridge appealed a decision that annulled their denial of a use variance to the Rudolph Steiner Fellowship Foundation. The lower courts ruled that the Foundation had a preexisting nonconforming use that could be extended, citing Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Foundation's use for an intergenerational community with a nursing home was not a unique nonconforming use like quarrying, and thus could not be expanded as a matter of right over the entire parcel. The court also rejected the estoppel argument. The case was remitted to Supreme Court to consider whether the denial of the use variance was arbitrary and capricious.

Zoning LawUse VarianceNonconforming UseExtension of Nonconforming UseSpecial PermitZoning Board of AppealsIntergenerational CommunityNursing HomeCo-worker ApartmentsVested Rights
References
17
Case No. 01-11-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

Debora Fletcher, Robert Jacobsen, Melissa Johnson, Karen Steiner and Nancy Trejo v. Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc.

Appellants, former employees of Energy Resource Technology GOM, Inc. (ERT), sued ERT for breach of contract, alleging that ERT failed to pay long-term incentive bonuses. The incentive provision stated that a cash award would vest over a five-year period, commencing on January 1, 2008, with 20 percent vesting each subsequent year until 2012. Appellants left ERT between 2008 and 2010 and did not receive payments after their departure. The trial court granted ERT's summary-judgment motion and denied appellants' motion for partial summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 'Long Term Incentive' provision unambiguously required employees to be employed at ERT on the vesting dates to be entitled to their awards, aligning with the plain and ordinary meaning of 'vest' and the purpose of a long-term incentive.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentEmployment agreementLong Term IncentiveVestingContract interpretationTexas lawAppellate reviewEmployee benefitsCompensation dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.N.S., Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment concerning a dispute over retiree medical benefits provided by AlliedSignal, Inc. The plaintiffs, C.N.S., Inc. d/b/a Community Nursing Services (CNS) and Gloria Steiner, challenged the denial of benefits for nursing services and the hourly rate. The Court dismissed claims against Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC) as it had no duty to pay benefits. The Court granted summary judgment to defendants regarding the reduction of nursing service payments from $100 to $55 per hour, finding the administrator's decision reasonable due to plaintiffs' failure to provide justification. However, the Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment concerning the termination of benefits for around-the-clock nursing care, citing a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of that decision.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsRetiree Medical PlanSummary Plan DescriptionPlan Administrator DiscretionBenefit DenialSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardOut-of-Network BenefitsNursing Services
References
7
Case No. 13-07-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2008

State Office of Risk Management v. Irma Trujillo

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Irma Trujillo, stemming from her workers’ compensation claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. SORM contended the trial court erred by excluding its expert witness, Dr. Martin R. Steiner, who was designated at the district court level but not at the prior administrative hearing. The trial court excluded Dr. Steiner's testimony, citing SORM’s failure to establish "good cause" for non-disclosure at the administrative level. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that SORM was not required to disclose Dr. Steiner at the administrative level, as his opinion was formulated for the district court proceedings and he was timely designated there. The court ruled that Dr. Steiner's testimony was central to the case's material issue of compensable injury and its exclusion constituted reversible error, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationExpert Witness ExclusionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTexas Labor CodeAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewDe Novo ReviewCompensable InjuryMedical TestimonyAppellate Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

State Office of Risk Management v. Trujillo

SORM appealed a jury verdict in favor of Irma Trujillo in a workers’ compensation claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. SORM contended the trial court erred in excluding its expert witness, Dr. Martin R. Steiner, who was designated at the district court level but not the administrative level. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Dr. Steiner's testimony, as SORM was not required to disclose an expert at the administrative level if the information was not known or in its possession at that time. The court determined Dr. Steiner's testimony was crucial to the central issue of compensability and was not cumulative, thus constituting reversible error. The judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Expert Witness ExclusionWorkers CompensationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAbuse of DiscretionDe Novo ReviewAdmissibility of EvidenceJudicial ReviewAdministrative RemediesRepetitive Trauma InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Steiner v. Benroal Realty Associates, L.P.

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a knee injury after stepping on a garbage bag while attempting to hook a dumpster. The plaintiffs initiated legal action against the property owner and site manager, alleging the existence of a dangerous and defective condition on the premises. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. This appellate court subsequently affirmed that decision, ruling that a defendant is not liable when a worker, aware of obvious employment hazards and possessing resources for safe conduct, performs the job incautiously.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySanitation WorkerObvious HazardAssumption of RiskAppellate DecisionNassau CountyKnee InjuryDangerous Condition
References
3
Case No. ADJ8396740
Regular
Jan 13, 2020

AAMIR KAHN vs. Denny's Restaurant

This case involves a dispute over a $11,250.00 bill from QME Dr. Matthew Steiner for a psychological evaluation. Defendant Denny's Restaurant sought reconsideration of an award ordering full payment, arguing the bill was unreasonable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case for further proceedings. This action was based on recent case law clarifying the burden of proof for lien claimants and the procedural requirements for defendants responding to medical-legal bills within 60 days.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEMedical-legal evaluationLabor Code section 4622Explanation of Review (EOR)Timely objectionsPenaltiesInterest
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwimmer v. Kaladjian

Plaintiffs (the Schwimmers and their children) sued defendants (Kaladjian, Sabol, Little, Harris, Guilford), primarily challenging the allegedly unlawful removal of their son Yoel and non-consensual physical examinations of their children by the Child Welfare Administration (CWA). They also contested the defendants' patterns and policies regarding child removal. Defendant Kaladjian moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted Kaladjian's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief as they failed to demonstrate an actual case or controversy or an immediate threat of future injury, relying instead on speculation. Consequently, the court also dismissed, sua sponte, similar claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the other defendants.

Child AbuseChild Welfare AdministrationMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionStanding (Law)Injunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue Process
References
22
Case No. 08-07-00091-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2009

State Office of Risk Management v. Georgina Alonso

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of Georgina Alonso in a worker's compensation case. SORM argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for leave to file an untimely response and its motion for continuance, which included Dr. Steiner's affidavit, claiming good cause due to miscommunication with Alonso's counsel. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's ruling under an abuse of discretion standard, finding that SORM failed to demonstrate good cause for the late filing as required by Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the appellate court presumed the trial court did not consider the late-filed evidence and affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that SORM failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionTimely FilingGood CauseNo-Evidence MotionContinuanceMedical ExpertTexas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 12 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