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

Arndt v. Pinard Home Health, Inc.

Anne G. Arndt, an accounts examiner for the Texas Workforce Commission, was auditing Pinard Home Health, Inc. During the audit, Arndt requested personal financial records of Robert Pinard, an officer and owner of the company, which Pinard Home Health refused to provide. Pinard Home Health then filed an ultra vires suit against Arndt, alleging she exceeded her authority. Arndt filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity barred the suit. The appellate court held that Arndt had the authority to request the information under the Texas Labor Code and that Pinard Home Health's suit was therefore barred by sovereign immunity, reversing the trial court's decision and dismissing the claims.

TexasSovereign ImmunityUltra ViresJurisdictionAccounts ExaminerTexas Workforce CommissionAuditPersonal RecordsLabor LawAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hypolite v. Health Care Services of New York Inc.

The plaintiff, Allison Hypolite, on behalf of a putative class of home health aides, moved for conditional certification and notice to a proposed class under the FLSA. The defendants, HCS Healthcare and Agnes Shemia, opposed and moved to strike portions of the plaintiff's reply. The court denied the motion to strike. The court granted conditional certification for the period between January 1, 2015, and October 13, 2015, finding that the defendants failed to comply with revised FLSA regulations concerning the Home Health Aide Exemption during this time. However, the motion was denied for the period before January 1, 2015, as the plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate that other potential opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated, given the fact-specific nature of the prior exemption rules. The plaintiff's request to extend the notice period to six years for state law claims was also denied.

FLSAConditional CertificationCollective ActionHome Health AidesOvertime PayWage and HourThird Party EmployerCompanionship Services ExemptionDepartment of Labor RegulationsRetroactive Effect
References
36
Case No. E2003-00432-WC-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM HOME CARE

Patricia Bryant, a home-health nursing assistant, suffered two work-related back injuries in 1997 while working for Baptist Health System Home Care of East Tennessee. After leaving employment, she filed for workers' compensation benefits. During a deposition in 1998, Bryant falsely testified she had not worked since leaving Baptist. Upon discovery, Baptist filed a counterclaim under the Workers’ Compensation Fraud Act. The trial court dismissed Baptist's counterclaim, finding no prejudice or fraudulent insurance act, and awarded Bryant 22.5% permanent partial disability benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the counterclaim, ruling that Baptist, as a self-insured employer, did not fit the 'insurer' definition under the Fraud Act, and affirmed the disability award, deferring to the trial court's credibility assessment of Bryant despite her false testimony.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse TestimonyPermanent Partial Disability BenefitsMedical Impairment RatingNeurosurgeon OpinionSelf-Insured Employer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court ReviewCredibility AssessmentBack Injury Claim
References
13
Case No. M2007-02787-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2009

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC

This case involves an appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County concerning a dispute over workers' compensation insurance premiums. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company sued Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC for unpaid balances after audits revealed underreported payroll. Friendship Home Health Agency, LLC appealed the trial court's judgment, citing the denial of a continuance, the rejection of an accord and satisfaction defense, and a waived statute of frauds argument. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance and no evidence to preponderate against the finding of no accord and satisfaction. The court also deemed the statute of frauds defense waived due to improper raising.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance PremiumsAudit DisputeContinuance MotionAccord and SatisfactionStatute of FraudsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewContract LawPayroll Underestimation
References
37
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Express Home Care Agency, Inc. v. VIP Health Services, Inc.

The defendant appeals an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, denying its motion for summary judgment regarding a breach of contract action. The plaintiff, a home health care worker provider, and the defendant, a home health care agency, had a contract where the plaintiff provided aides, and the defendant agreed to pay an hourly rate. The plaintiff sued for non-payment, while the defendant counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff provided unqualified aides. The court found the contract divisible, thus the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for qualified aides, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the first cause of action. However, the order was modified to dismiss the second, third, and fourth causes of action, which alleged unjust enrichment, as they were based on the same breach of contract allegations.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppealDivisible ContractUnjust EnrichmentHome Health CareQualified WorkersCounterclaimsContract LawAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. Docket No. 2015-05-0341, State File No. 69225-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Dugger, Paula v. Home Health Care of Middle Tennessee, LLC, et al.

Paula Dugger, a home health care nurse, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while returning home after abandoning a work trip due to inclement weather. She sought workers' compensation benefits, arguing her injuries arose from her employment. The trial court denied her claim, finding no exception to the 'going and coming' rule for injuries sustained during commutes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, concluding that Dugger was not a 'traveling employee' and that the employer did not control the risks of her commute, thus her journey was not a compensated part of her service or a special errand.

Going and Coming RuleMotor Vehicle AccidentHome Health Care NurseScope of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSpecial Errand ExceptionTraveling Employee ExceptionEmployer Furnished TransportationInclement WeatherCausal Connection
References
18
Case No. No. 10-12-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2013

Brian Dunn, Janel Dunn and Leisel Moseley v. Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and Happy Hill Farm Children's Home Endowment Fund, Happy Hill Farm Children Home, Inc., A/K/A Dallas Cowboys Courage House

Appellants Leisel Moseley, Brian Dunn, and Janel Dunn appealed a summary judgment favoring Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and related entities. They claimed wrongful termination, alleging Happy Hill Farm operates as a treatment or mental-health facility under the Texas Health and Safety Code, and contested the applicability of statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Happy Hill Farm is neither a treatment nor a mental-health facility, but a basic child care facility with a school. Furthermore, the court found Happy Hill Farm exempt from former Chapter 242 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it operates under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a recognized state agency.

Summary judgmentWrongful terminationTexas Health and Safety CodeMental health facilityTreatment facilityBoarding schoolState agency exemptionEmployment at willRetaliatory dischargeMedical misconduct
References
17
Case No. ADJ10954204
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

MARIA FLORES vs. PINNACLE HEALTH CORP., SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, AFFINITY HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES, FALLS LAKE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CMS, HOME HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Home Health Care Solutions. The applicant, an LVN, was injured in a car accident while traveling between patients for multiple agencies. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment for Home Health Care Solutions. This decision was based on the fact that the applicant was required to use her own vehicle, which extended the employer-employee relationship beyond direct service. The WCJ also found the going and coming rule did not bar the claim due to the required use of transportation between patient locations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGoing and Coming RuleAOE/COELVNCar AccidentAutomobile ExceptionTransitEmployment RelationshipRequired Vehicle Use
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,971 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