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

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Confer

Patricia Confer, widow of Dr. Ronald Confer, sought workers' compensation death benefits after Dr. Confer died in a car accident. She alleged he was in the course and scope of his employment, intending to purchase computer supplies for his employer, Texas Educational Foundation, before heading home. After an initial favorable ruling was reversed by an appeals panel, Mrs. Confer successfully sued in district court, where a jury found in her favor. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged the verdict, citing insufficient evidence, erroneous exclusion of testimony, and an improper attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "dual purpose rule" to uphold the jury's finding that Dr. Confer was on a business errand at the time of the accident and finding no reversible errors in the trial court's other rulings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentDual Purpose RuleAutomobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. Gaines

This dissenting opinion concerns a petitioner's request for review of a determination terminating his participation in a temporary release program and for monetary damages. The petitioner, an inmate, was removed from the program after a urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The dissent argues that the procedures followed, despite a lack of formal chain of custody documentation, did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as strict rules of evidence are not required in such disciplinary proceedings. Citing judicial precedent, the dissenting judges emphasize that an inmate's constitutional protections are diminished by institutional needs. Therefore, they would affirm the termination of the petitioner's work release program.

temporary release programdrug testingdue processinmate rightscorrectional facilitiesadministrative hearingchain of custodyurine analysisArticle 78State liability
References
8
Case No. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, sued the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna, after her claim for intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) was denied. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the insurance code, and deceptive trade practices, along with a request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster appealed, arguing her declaratory judgment claim was not barred, legislative immunity was waived, the administrative procedures act provided for judicial review, and Aetna was not protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity applied to TRS and, by extension, to Aetna as its agent, and that Foster's claims did not fall under any exceptions for judicial review or waiver of immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment AgencyInsurance DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedures ActAgency AdjudicationJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2010

Samuelsen v. Yassky

Petitioners, including a transit workers' union and a community group, sought a preliminary injunction under CPLR Article 78 to stop the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) from implementing its "Group Ride Vehicle Pilot Program." The program allows commuter vans and for-hire vehicles to pick up passengers on former bus routes where MTA service was suspended, without prior arrangement. Petitioners argued the program violated Transportation Law, TLC regulations, and unlawfully granted a franchise without City Council approval. The court denied the injunction, finding petitioners failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable injury. It held that the pilot program did not violate Transportation Law, was authorized by the City Charter, and constituted a limited license, not a franchise. The court also balanced the equities, recognizing the loss of jobs for union members but also the public's need for alternative transportation.

Pilot ProgramFor-Hire VehiclesCommuter VansTransportation LawNew York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC)Bus RoutesPublic TransportationPreliminary InjunctionStandingGovernment Agency Action
References
21
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

Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck

Michael Andrew Hauck, a deckhand, was fired by Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. for refusing to illegally pump bilges into the water, an act he verified as unlawful with the U.S. Coast Guard. Sabine, however, claimed his termination was due to other derelictions of duty. The case, a wrongful discharge suit, saw the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Sabine reversed by the court of appeals. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, establishing a narrow public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. This exception applies exclusively when an employee is discharged solely for refusing to perform an illegal act that carries criminal penalties, with the burden of proof resting on the plaintiff.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment At WillPublic Policy ExceptionIllegal ActSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipTexas LawCriminal PenaltiesWhistleblower
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allied Pilots Ass'n v. AMR Corp. (In Re AMR Corp.)

The Allied Pilots Association (APA) sought a declaratory judgment that its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with American Airlines, Inc. (American) expired in 2008 and thus could not be rejected under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code. American argued the CBA became 'amendable' under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), keeping its terms in effect during negotiations. The Court, following Second Circuit precedent, found that the CBA did not expire but became amendable under the RLA, making it subject to Section 1113. Consequently, the Court denied APA's motion for summary judgment and granted American's motion to dismiss.

BankruptcyCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActSection 1113Declaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeStatus Quo ProvisionsAmendable Contracts
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International

Texas International Airlines (T.I.) filed a complaint against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), alleging an unlawful strike/work stoppage in violation of the Railway Labor Act and seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court issued several temporary restraining orders to prevent disruptive tactics like slowdowns and excessive equipment write-ups by ALPA members. ALPA counterclaimed for breach of contract and sought to vacate the restraining orders. The court granted T.I.'s application for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood that ALPA members were engaged in concerted action to disrupt operations. However, the court denied T.I.'s application to hold ALPA in contempt, citing insufficient clear and convincing evidence to establish union liability under the 'mass action' theory or for official encouragement or ratification of violations.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtWork StoppageSlowdownAirline IndustryUnion LiabilityCollective BargainingFederal Court
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 3,610 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