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

Jackson v. Phinney

This consolidated memorandum opinion addresses three cases seeking refunds of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleged the plaintiffs, who operate shrimp boats in Rockport, Texas, were employers of shrimp captains and deck hands. Plaintiffs argued these workers were independent contractors, not employees, under the common-law tests. The court reviewed factors such as the right to control, right of discharge, integration of work, profit/loss opportunities, permanency, and the parties' own views. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiffs were indeed employers and denied the tax refund claims.

FICA taxesFUTA taxesemployment taxtax refundemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractorcommon law testright to controlshrimp fishing industrymaritime law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Financial Insurance Co. v. Ragsdale

This is an appeal in a workers' compensation case concerning an impairment rating. Appellee William Ragsdale, an employee of MR Drilling, suffered a fall at work in 2001 after a prior stroke. His treating physician assigned a 0% impairment rating (IR), while the designated doctor, Dr. Steven Ellsworth, determined a 67% whole person impairment but apportioned it to 10% attributable to the new accident. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel overturned a hearing officer's decision, ruling the IR was 67%. The employer's carrier appealed to the courts, challenging the 67% IR and the exclusion of doctors' testimonies. The trial court presented the jury with 0% or 67% IR options, and the jury found 67%. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the 67% IR and the attorney's fees awarded to Ragsdale, finding no abuse of discretion in the jury question or exclusion of evidence.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementDesignated DoctorTreating PhysicianJury VerdictAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeMedical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Mangement v. Linda Rodriguez

Linda Rodriguez, a former Texas Department of Human Services employee, sustained a compensable injury in 1998, reaching maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 2000. Her worker's compensation claim centered on a disputed impairment rating (IR), with designated doctor Howard Douglas assigning 5 percent and treating physician Terren Klein assigning 23 percent. Rodriguez appealed the Division's 5 percent IR determination to the district court. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) filed a second plea to the jurisdiction, arguing no justiciable issue existed as only one valid IR was presented. The trial court overruled SORM's plea, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, finding a justiciable controversy regarding the validity of Dr. Klein's 23 percent IR.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementJurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Labor CodeMedical EvidenceDesignated DoctorTreating PhysicianAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. 08-07-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2009

Texas Builders Insurance Co. v. Calvin Molder

Calvin Molder sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 2001, leading to a workers' compensation claim against Texas Builders Insurance Company (TBI). Despite initial surgeries and an impairment rating (IR) by Dr. Erwin, Molder experienced further complications and required a third surgery. A Hearing Officer determined Molder's subsequent shoulder issues were related to the original injury. Following a dispute over MMI and IR, Dr. Foster was appointed as a new designated doctor, certifying Molder's MMI in March 2003 with a 16% IR. TBI appealed the trial court's summary judgment affirming Dr. Foster's findings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the proper appointment of Dr. Foster and the MMI date, but reversed the 16% IR due to its inclusion of post-MMI surgery, remanding the case for reassessment.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementDesignated DoctorShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearMedical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentTexas Labor Code
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Temple

Eva C. Temple, an IRS employee, was arrested for harassment, and during her apprehension, she threatened New York City police detectives with an IRS audit. Subsequent to her unrelated dismissal from the IRS, Temple left a highly aggressive and threatening voicemail for an IRS employment specialist, James Petherbridge, who had managed her separation. She was indicted on two federal counts: willful oppression under color of law (26 U.S.C. § 7214) for threatening the detectives and forcible interference with a federal employee (18 U.S.C. § 111) for the voicemail. While a jury convicted Temple on both counts, the court granted her motion for acquittal on Count 1, concluding she was not acting under color of law during her arrest. However, the court denied her motions concerning Count 2, affirming that the voicemail constituted a credible and immediate threat of forcible intimidation against Petherbridge in the performance of his duties.

Criminal ProcedureAcquittal MotionNew Trial MotionFederal Statute InterpretationWillful OppressionUnder Color of LawForcible InterferenceFederal Employee IntimidationThreat AssessmentJury Verdict
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIR Management Corp. v. United States

Plaintiffs, a group of restaurant operators (collectively, 'Taxpayers'), challenged the United States government's assessment of employer-only Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes on their employees' unreported tip income for the years 1989, 1990, 1992, and 1993. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) used two aggregate methods to calculate the unreported tips, which the plaintiffs stipulated as reasonable in amount. The core legal questions before the court were whether the IRS possessed the authority to make aggregate FICA tax assessments without individually auditing employees and crediting their Social Security accounts, and whether certain assessments were time-barred. The court, deferring to the IRS's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes, ruled that aggregate assessments are permissible and that the statute of limitations begins with the IRS's notice and demand to the employer. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiffs' motions were denied.

FICA Tax AssessmentEmployer Tax LiabilityUnreported Employee TipsIRS Aggregate Assessment AuthoritySummary Judgment MotionTax Refund LitigationStatutory AmbiguityChevron DeferenceSocial Security BenefitsDue Process Challenge
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Radcliffe v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiff Joseph Radcliffe brought an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to compel disclosure of documents related to an ongoing tax investigation into his offshore credit card accounts. The IRS withheld certain documents, citing FOIA exemptions (b)(3) in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103, and (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(C) for law enforcement purposes. Radcliffe challenged the adequacy of the IRS's search and the applicability of the exemptions. The court found that the IRS conducted an adequate search and that the withheld documents constituted 'return information' compiled for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The court concluded that disclosure of these documents would interfere with federal tax administration by revealing the nature, scope, and evidence of the ongoing investigation. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the court denied the plaintiff's request for an in camera review.

FOIAIRS InvestigationTax EvasionOffshore AccountsSummary JudgmentDisclosure ExemptionsLaw EnforcementFederal Tax AdministrationReturn InformationCivil Examination
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adamowicz v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiffs Michael Adamowicz and Elizabeth Fraser, acting as executors of the Estate of Mary Adamowicz, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They sought to compel the production of documents withheld by the IRS, related to three FOIA requests made in December 2005 and April 2007 concerning the IRS's examination of their mother's Estate and ensuing legal disputes. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the IRS's searches for responsive documents were adequate and that the withheld documents fell within FOIA exemptions, specifically Exemption 2 (internal agency information), Exemption 3 (statutory exemptions under I.R.C. § 6103), Exemption 5 (privileges like deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product), Exemption 6 (personnel and medical information), and Exemption 7 (law enforcement purposes, including invasion of privacy and confidential sources). Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion was DENIED.

FOIA ExemptionsIRS DisclosureTaxation LitigationAgency Search AdequacyDeliberative ProcessAttorney Work-ProductConfidentiality AssuranceSummary Judgment MotionGovernment Information ActPrivacy Interests
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. National Westminster Bank USA (In Re Q-C Circuits Corp.)

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's summary judgment concerning the priority of an IRS tax lien against National Westminster Bank USA (NatWest) in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding for Q-C Circuits Corp. The District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court's finding that NatWest received cash collateral payments and sale proceeds without providing proper notice to the IRS, thereby violating the IRS's superior lienholder rights. The District Court modified the order to award prejudgment interest to the Government, compelling NatWest to disgorge funds sufficient to satisfy the outstanding tax lien, including interest, due to its use of funds that should have been available to the Government.

IRS tax lienPriority disputesCash collateralAdequate protectionBankruptcy proceedingsSummary judgmentPrejudgment interestDisgorgement of fundsNotice requirementsSecured creditors
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Dillon

The debtor filed a motion for contempt against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), alleging a willful violation of the automatic stay by refusing to return funds levied from Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) prior to the bankruptcy filing. The debtor also filed a turnover motion for these funds, which the court dismissed procedurally. The court first addressed sovereign immunity, concluding that while declaratory and injunctive relief might be available, it lacked jurisdiction to award monetary damages against the IRS because the government had not filed a claim in the bankruptcy case. Furthermore, the court determined that the Tennessee exemption statute cited by the debtor did not apply to federal levies, meaning the IRA accounts were not exempt from the IRS's action. Consequently, even assuming a technical violation of the automatic stay, the debtor suffered no actual damages, and the motion for contempt was denied.

Automatic StaySovereign ImmunityBankruptcy CodeInternal Revenue ServiceIRA AccountsFederal LevyState Exemption LawMonetary DamagesContempt MotionTurnover Motion
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 71 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