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

Continental Casualty Insurance Co. v. Functional Restoration Associates

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) affirmed a decision holding Continental liable for medical treatment costs provided by Functional Restoration Associates (FRA) and Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE) to an injured employee. The trial court dismissed Continental's suit, citing a lack of statutory basis for judicial review of the Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental argued for both statutory and inherent rights to judicial review. The appellate court found no explicit or implied statutory right but concluded that Continental had an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision affected Continental’s vested property interest (money). The court also rejected the Commission's argument regarding untimely filing. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine if the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judicial ReviewMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawDue ProcessProperty RightsStatutory InterpretationRemandTexas LawAppellate Court
References
30
Case No. 03-97-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Continental Casualty Insurance Company v. Functional Restoration Associates Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Functional Restoration Associates (FRA), Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE), and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission). Continental sought judicial review of a Commission decision holding it liable for medical costs for an injured employee, James Hood. The trial court had dismissed the suit, citing a lack of statutory jurisdiction for judicial review of Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental asserted both statutory and inherent bases for jurisdiction. The appellate court found no explicit or necessarily implied statutory right to judicial review of DMR decisions. However, it concluded that Continental possessed an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision directly affected Continental's vested property interest in the money it was ordered to pay. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment of dismissal and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including a review of whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessVested Property RightsMedical Benefits DisputeAppellate JurisdictionTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
28
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
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. 11-10-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2012

Jeffrey Mann and Gary Mann v. Hon. E. Lee Gabriel

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing claims brought by pro se litigants, Jeffrey Mann and Gary Mann, against former District Judge E. Lee Gabriel. The claims were dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity. The trial court initially granted a motion to dismiss, which was later reconsidered and granted again after the appellants claimed lack of notice. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision de novo, focusing solely on the pleadings to determine subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that judicial immunity absolutely barred the claims against Judge Gabriel, as her actions were within her judicial functions, thus affirming the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

judicial immunitypro se litigantssubject-matter jurisdictionappellate proceduremotion to dismissTexas lawcivil proceduregovernmental immunityofficial capacitydismissal
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guttierez v. Berryhill

Betsy Lee Guttierez applied for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability due to various mental health impairments. Her applications were denied by an Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council. Guttierez sought judicial review, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly assess her residual functional capacity (RFC) by rejecting the only medical opinion on her mental ability to work without providing adequate reasons or a function-by-function analysis. The Court agreed, finding the ALJ's RFC assessment unsupported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ, a non-medical professional, made a determination of Guttierez's mental capacity without relying on a medical opinion. Consequently, the Court granted Guttierez's motion, denied the Commissioner's motion, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSSIALJ Decision ReviewRFC AssessmentMedical EvidenceMental Health ImpairmentsBipolar DisorderAnxiety DisorderTreating Physician Rule
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,273 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