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

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner

This case addresses the legal sufficiency of evidence that the prescription drug Bendectin caused Kelly Havner to be born with a limb reduction birth defect. The Havners' suit alleged negligence, defective design, and defective marketing against Merrell Dow, focusing on the scientific reliability of causation expert testimony. While the trial court found for the Havners and the court of appeals initially reversed then affirmed for actual damages on rehearing, the Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the scientific evidence, including epidemiological and animal studies. The Court held that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to establish causation and therefore reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Toxic TortProduct LiabilityCausationScientific EvidenceEpidemiologyExpert TestimonyDrug LitigationBirth DefectsBendectinLimb Reduction
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Svensen v. Svensen

This case is an appeal contesting the dismissal of a divorce action. The trial court dismissed the husband's petition because he had not met the six-month Texas residency requirement at the time of filing or hearing. The appellate court clarifies that the residency requirement is not jurisdictional but a qualification, meaning a plea in abatement should lead to retaining the case on the docket rather than outright dismissal. Consequently, the court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit and refusing its reinstatement after the residency condition was fulfilled. The case was reversed and remanded for reinstatement and trial on the merits.

DivorceResidency RequirementsPlea in AbatementJurisdictionDismissalRemandTexas Family CodeCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewMarital Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

Justice Boyd concurs with the judgment that a Texas statute requiring eyebrow threaders to obtain an esthetician's license is unconstitutional. However, he disagrees with the Court's adoption of a new 'unreasonably burdensome that it becomes oppressive' test for the Texas Constitution's 'due course of law' provision. Instead, he believes a law violates due course of law only if it is 'arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore oppressive, because it has no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.' He finds the esthetician's license requirement for eyebrow threaders to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive as it lacks a rational relationship to public health and safety, despite agreeing that sanitation training is rational. Boyd emphasizes that courts should not 'legislate from the bench' but must exercise their authority to interpret the Constitution when a law is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. He concludes that imposing the existing esthetician licensing scheme on eyebrow threaders is not rationally related to the legitimate government interest in promoting public health and safety.

Constitutional LawDue Course of LawEconomic RegulationOccupational LicensingEsthetician LicenseEyebrow ThreadingRational Basis ReviewArbitrary and UnreasonableTexas ConstitutionSubstantive Due Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 7,137 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