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

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. 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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01338
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Pierre

This case involves W. Marilynn Pierre, a suspended attorney, and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Pierre was previously suspended in 2017 due to admissions of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds, using her escrow account as an operating account, and evading tax liens. She also converted/misappropriated guardianship funds and failed to satisfy a judgment. Now, the parties have filed a joint motion for discipline by consent, stipulating to facts that confirm violations of rules 1.15 (a), (b), (e), and 8.4 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Mitigating factors include her cooperation, current work as a social worker, restitution efforts, and mental health issues (bulimia, depression, ADD) affecting her practice, for which she is undergoing monitoring. The Court grants the joint motion and imposes a five-year suspension, retroactive to August 8, 2017.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsattorney disciplineescrow account misusecommingling fundsmisappropriationtax liensmental healthmitigating factorssuspension
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendoza v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc.

Celedonio R. Mendoza, a laborer, sought increased worker's compensation benefits after his physical condition deteriorated following an initial injury. After an initial award, his application for modification due to changed condition was denied by the Industrial Accident Board. He then filed suit in district court, where a jury found him totally and permanently incapacitated. The court of civil appeals reversed this judgment, ruling that Mendoza's testimony regarding his prior incapacity constituted a judicial admission. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, determining that Mendoza's lay opinion was not a clear, deliberate, and unequivocal judicial admission, thereby allowing his claim for increased benefits.

Worker's CompensationJudicial AdmissionChange of ConditionTotal IncapacityLay TestimonyMedical OpinionTexas LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictPhysical Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Miller

Susan Miller, a police officer for the City of Austin, sustained foot injuries and was awarded workers' compensation by the Industrial Accident Board. The City challenged this award, but the district court granted Miller's motion for summary judgment, awarding her compensation for the total loss of use of both feet for 250 weeks, plus medical expenses. The City appealed, raising points regarding judicial admissions, the sufficiency of the summary-judgment record, the amount of compensation, and discovery sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the judicial admissions, the determination of total loss of use, the cumulative calculation of compensation for multiple specific injuries, and the discovery sanctions against the City.

Workers' CompensationFoot InjuryPlantar FasciitisHeel Spur SyndromeTotal Loss of UseJudicial AdmissionsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical ExpensesCumulative Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Price v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Appellant Bonnie F. Price appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) concerning her claim of bad faith in handling two workers' compensation claims. Price's initial workers' compensation claims were settled in March 1988, after which she initiated a separate bad faith claim against TEIA. TEIA successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court, asserting that Price's bad faith claim was barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel due to the prior settlement judgment, that her previous agreements constituted judicial admissions, and that evidence negated essential elements of her bad faith claim. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment, focusing on the applicability of collateral estoppel and judicial admissions stemming from the prior workers' compensation settlement. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that TEIA had successfully proven its affirmative defenses and negated elements of Price's bad faith claim.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial AdmissionSettlement AgreementAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier Liability
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange

Plaintiff Ralph Evans sought workers' compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity following a fall on October 31, 1974, while employed at Big Texan Steak Ranch in Lubbock, Texas. The defendant insurer contended that any incapacity was due to a pre-existing injury from May 1974. The jury found no incapacity resulted from the October 1974 injury and awarded $297.00 for medical care. Evans appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, a sole cause instruction, a judicial admonition, and the admission of evidence concerning a prior compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings, the sole cause instruction, and the admissibility of the prior claim as an admission.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryPre-existing ConditionIncapacity BenefitsJury FindingsSole Cause InstructionMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePrior ClaimAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,911 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