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

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. McCall

Petitioner, a food service worker, applied for ordinary disability retirement benefits, claiming permanent incapacitation due to a stroke. The respondent denied the application, finding insufficient evidence that petitioner was permanently incapacitated from her duties. During the subsequent CPLR article 78 proceeding, a neurologist for the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System testified that neither their examination nor review of medical records showed significant objective neurological dysfunction that was permanent or disabling. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, ruling it was supported by substantial evidence and that the respondent had the authority to credit one medical expert's opinion over conflicting views from treating physicians. The petition challenging the determination was dismissed.

Ordinary disability retirement benefitsCPLR Article 78Stroke incapacitationMedical expert testimonyConflicting medical opinionsSubstantial evidence reviewAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewPermanent incapacitationRetirement System benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. McCall

The petitioner, a correction officer, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits for injuries sustained in 1994 and 1995. The New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System denied both applications, finding that the incidents either did not constitute an accident or did not occur in the course of her duties, and that she was not permanently incapacitated. The Hearing Officer and subsequently the respondent affirmed these denials. While the Court acknowledged the Hearing Officer applied an incorrect legal standard, it deemed the error harmless, concluding that the petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from working. This conclusion was based on substantial evidence, primarily the medical opinion of Dr. John Cambareri, who found no objective evidence of significant structural damage or disability, despite conflicting medical testimonies.

Disability RetirementCorrection OfficerAccidental InjuryPerformance of DutyMedical IncapacityOrthopedic ExaminationConflicting Medical OpinionsSubstantial EvidenceCPLR Article 78Retirement and Social Security Law
References
6
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

Plaintiff Terry Smith, a former Diabetes Sales Specialist for Bayer Corporation, filed an action under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits, claiming wrongful denial due to psychiatric impairments including depression, panic disorder, and bi-polar disorder. The Plan administrator, Bayer, upheld the denial based on reviews by non-examining physicians. However, Smith's treating psychiatrists, Dr. LeBuffe and Dr. McCool, consistently found him disabled. The court found the Plan's reliance on non-examining doctors, who 'cherry-picked' medical records and distorted findings, to be arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted Smith's motion for benefits, denying Bayer's, and also awarded partial disability benefits, ruling that Smith's failure to seek rehabilitation approval was excused by the prior wrongful denial.

ERISALong-term disabilityDisability benefits denialPsychiatric impairmentDepressionPanic disorderBi-polar disorderAttention Deficit Disorder (ADD)Treating physician ruleArbitrary and capricious standard
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weldon v. DiNapoli

Petitioner, a State Police investigator, sought disability retirement benefits due to a left shoulder injury sustained in 2003 and 2008, claiming permanent incapacitation. The application was initially denied, and this denial was upheld after a hearing, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish permanent incapacity. The respondent affirmed this determination, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the determination, citing the lack of permanency findings in the petitioner's medical records and expert opinions from a neurologist and orthopedic surgeon who found no permanent disability. The orthopedic surgeon suggested the condition, diagnosed as chronic regional pain syndrome, was a temporary total disability that could improve with aggressive physical therapy. Consequently, the respondent's determination was supported by substantial evidence, and the petition was dismissed.

State PoliceDisability Retirement BenefitsPermanent IncapacityShoulder InjuryMedical RecordsNeurologist OpinionOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionChronic Regional Pain SyndromeTemporary Total DisabilityCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. 2-06-217-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

in the Matter of the Guardianship of Virgie Louise Parker, an Alleged Incapacitated Person

The attorney ad litem for Virgie Louise Parker appealed the trial court's decision to appoint a guardian, challenging the admission of two physician's reports and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Parker's incapacitation. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that the physician's reports by Dr. Adolphus Ray Lewis and Dr. Edward A. Luke, Jr., were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, distinguishing them from prior cases where reports were deemed untrustworthy. Furthermore, the court concluded that the jury's findings of Parker's incapacitation, the necessity of a guardian, and the protection of her rights were supported by legally and factually sufficient clear and convincing evidence, thereby overruling all of Parker's four issues.

GuardianshipIncapacitationElderly CareMedical EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionHearsay RuleAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDementia
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dingee v. DiNapoli

The petitioner sought disability retirement benefits after sustaining a back injury at work. The Retirement System denied the application, a decision upheld by the Hearing Officer and subsequently by the respondent, citing the petitioner's failure to prove permanent incapacitation. In reviewing this determination, the court considered conflicting medical opinions from a chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon, both suggesting that further medical treatment, including weight loss and physical therapy, could potentially alleviate the petitioner's condition. The court found substantial evidence to support the respondent's decision that the petitioner was not permanently disabled due to the availability of further medical treatment. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination and dismissed the petition.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPermanent IncapacitationCorrection Officer DutiesBack InjuryHerniated DiscConflicting Medical EvidenceOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionChiropractor OpinionWeight Loss RecommendationPhysical Therapy Recommendation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,092 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