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
Sep 30, 1988

Perez v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by 310 Hispanic Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), led by named plaintiff Bernardo Perez, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found a pattern and practice of discrimination within the FBI concerning conditions of employment and promotional opportunities for Hispanic agents. Specifically, the court highlighted the disproportionate burden placed on Hispanic agents for Spanish language-related assignments (like wiretaps and undercover work), which adversely affected their career advancement. The promotional system, with its excessive subjective elements and lack of EEO compliance mechanisms, was deemed discriminatory. The court also found that the FBI retaliated against Bernardo Perez for filing an EEO complaint, including the misuse of a Grand Jury subpoena during an administrative investigation against him. However, claims of religious discrimination and class-wide administrative discipline and transfer discrimination were not substantiated.

National Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactRetaliationFBIClass ActionPromotional SystemSubjective Evaluations
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. New York State Commission of Investigation

Petitioners, Suffolk County District Attorney Patrick Henry and Assistant DA Raymond G. Perini, initiated a proceeding against the New York State Commission of Investigation (S.I.C.) and its chairman, David G. Trager. They alleged the S.I.C. overstepped its jurisdiction, interfered with the DA's duties, and violated their constitutional and statutory rights during a two-year probe into the Suffolk County Police Department and DA's office. Petitioners sought various forms of relief, including declaratory judgments, injunctive relief, and pre-release judicial review of the S.I.C.'s report. The court denied motions for intervention and discovery, concluding that the S.I.C. is a purely investigative body without adjudicatory or prosecutorial powers, thus upholding its enabling act's constitutionality and denying all of the petitioners' requested relief. The court granted the respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Investigatory PowersDue Process RightsJurisdictional DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorari ReviewState Commission of InvestigationGrand Jury AuthorityPublic Official MisconductCivil Rights Law
References
18
Case No. 03-17-00357-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2017

George Allibone, M.D. v. Scott Freshour, in His Official Capacity as the Interim Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board Juanita Garner, Investigator of the Texas Medical Board And the Texas Medical Board

George Allibone, M.D., appealed the denial of his petition for a protective order against an administrative subpoena issued by the Texas Medical Board. The subpoena sought patient medical and billing records for an investigation into complaints against Allibone. He contended the trial court erred by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and by abusing its discretion in finding the subpoena reasonable and relevant. The appellate court found Allibone waived his complaint regarding missing findings. It also concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion, citing the Board's need for complete records for investigation and Allibone's failure to prove the unconstitutionality of the statute requiring compliance. The trial court's order was affirmed.

Medical Board InvestigationAdministrative SubpoenaPhysician RecordsConstitutional RightsDue ProcessJudicial Review of Agency ActionAbuse of DiscretionFourth AmendmentTexas LawProfessional Licensing
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.

The plaintiff, injured at a wedding by a videographer (Vladimir Kataiev) hired by HR Photography, Inc. (HR), sued HR for vicarious liability and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. HR moved for summary judgment, arguing Kataiev was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court granted HR's motion, finding Kataiev an independent contractor and no evidence of HR's negligence. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that HR successfully demonstrated Kataiev's independent contractor status based on factors like using his own equipment, receiving cash payments without benefits, and HR exercising only minimal control. The court also found no evidence that HR knew of Kataiev's propensity for the conduct that caused the injury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl TestTort Law
References
21
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05129
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Ansah v. A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The underlying action was a putative class action filed by security and fire safety workers, Samuel Ansah et al., against A.W.I. Security & Investigation, Inc., and affiliated entities. Plaintiffs sought recovery for prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, and overtime pay for work on public construction projects. The Supreme Court had denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment as premature, citing the need for production of relevant public work contracts and conflicting affidavits. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, also rejecting defendants' unpreserved argument for arbitration, stating that nonsignatories are generally not bound by arbitration agreements.

Summary judgmentclass actionprevailing wagessupplemental benefitsovertime paypublic construction projectsarbitration agreementnonsignatoriesCPLR 3212 [f]Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05907 [164 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (AWI), a subcontractor, and Whitestone Construction Corp. (Whitestone), a general contractor, over unpaid security services for public construction projects. Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI's action, citing a contractual six-month limitations period that it claimed began in April 2012. AWI appealed the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that the limitations period was unenforceable because Whitestone had stated that payment was contingent on the resolution of a separate prevailing wage class action. Citing precedent, the Appellate Division found that Whitestone's position nullified the contractual limitations period, as it created a scenario where AWI would be forced to sue for a claim that was not yet ripe. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying Whitestone's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Contractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSubcontractor PaymentPublic Construction ProjectCondition PrecedentAccrual of Cause of ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewRipeness of ClaimIndemnity Provision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. 14-09-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

Zeno Digital Solutions, L.L.C. v. K Griff Investigations, Inc.

Zeno Digital Solutions, L.L.C. appealed a trial court's judgment awarding K Griff Investigations, Inc. lost profit damages. K Griff had sued Zeno for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract after copiers sold by Zeno experienced mechanical problems. The trial court awarded K Griff lost profits, repair costs, and attorney's fees. Zeno contended that the lost profit award was unsupported by evidence, specifically arguing K Griff failed to account for expenses and improperly based calculations on gross revenue instead of net profits. The appellate court agreed, finding the evidence legally insufficient to prove lost profit damages. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the lost profit damages award and affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.

DamagesLost ProfitsGross RevenueNet ProfitsDeceptive Trade Practices ActFraudNegligent MisrepresentationBreach of ContractCopiersEquipment
References
12
Case No. 05-17-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2018

Juan Acra, Secner USA, LLC, Secner HR S.A. DE C v. and North American Secner Holdings, LLC v. Giovanni Bonaudo and Maria Jilma Maldonado

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's judgment confirming an arbitration award. The appellants, Juan Acra, Secner USA, LLC, Secner HR S.A. De C.V., and North American Secner Holdings, LLC, appealed the award in favor of appellees Giovanni Bonaudo and Maria Jilma Maldonado, contending the arbitrator exceeded his powers and the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees. The dispute originated from a failed business relationship concerning the Mexican petroleum industry, leading to claims of breach of contract, fraud, and other torts. The appellate court concluded that the arbitration proceedings were subject to limited review and that the appellants failed to show the arbitrator exceeded his powers. However, the court found the trial court erred by awarding post-arbitration attorney's fees to the appellees. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment to delete the award of post-arbitration attorney's fees and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

ArbitrationAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractFraud ClaimArbitration Award ConfirmationDallas CountyTexas LawJudicial Review LimitsFifth Circuit
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Correa v. Mana Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Evelyn Correa sued Mana Products, Inc. and its management for retaliatory discharge, alleging violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. She claimed dismissal was due to complaining of discriminatory practices and participating in internal company investigations. As HR Manager, Correa investigated employee grievances, including discrimination claims from Yoni Sanchez and Rafael Fernandez who later filed with the New York Human Rights Division. Mana terminated Correa, stating that she sided with employees, leading to a loss of trust from management. The court, applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, found that Correa failed to demonstrate she engaged in protected activity under either the opposition or participation clauses of Title VII, as her actions were within her regular HR duties. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.

Retaliatory DischargeTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Summary JudgmentHuman Resources ManagerProtected ActivityOpposition ClauseParticipation ClauseDiscrimination ComplaintsInternal Investigations
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 887 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