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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 1980

Valero Energy Corp. v. United States Department of Energy

Plaintiffs, including VALERO, Lo-Vaca Gathering Company, and Coastal States Gas Corporation, sought injunctive relief against the Department of Energy (DOE) and GAS DEL ORO to prevent the enforcement of DOE's interpretations of regulations concerning the calculation of natural gas shrinkage costs. The dispute centered on whether shrinkage costs should be calculated based solely on the price term (MCF basis) of a gas sales contract, as DOE interpreted, or on a broader consideration of the contract including a BTU basis, as argued by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had previously been denied an exception by DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and had an appeal pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Defendants moved to dismiss the case, citing Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the lack of ripeness for judicial review. The Court ultimately dismissed the cause, concluding that Plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies regarding the OHA decision, and that their broader challenges to the regulations and interpretations were not ripe for judicial review, as they either involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring contract construction or were too abstract.

Ripeness DoctrineExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDepartment of Energy (DOE) RegulationsNatural Gas PricingPetroleum Products RegulationAdministrative Agency InterpretationContract ConstructionInjunctive Relief RequestJudicial Review of Agency ActionMotions to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yovanny L.

This case addresses the accuracy of court interpreter translations in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The Assistant Corporation Counsel moved to strike the complainant's testimony, alleging significant errors by the court-appointed Mandarin interpreter. After conducting a hearing and considering testimony from both the Assistant Corporation Counsel and the interpreter, the court acknowledged that some minor errors in translation and interpreter conduct occurred. However, the court ultimately found these errors to be isolated instances and not sufficiently serious or pervasive to cause major prejudice to any party. Consequently, the drastic remedy of striking the testimony and starting anew was denied, and the trial was ordered to resume with a different Mandarin interpreter.

Juvenile DelinquencyCourt InterpretersTranslation AccuracyDue Process RightsEvidentiary MotionTestimony AdmissibilityMandarin LanguageFamily Court ProcedureJudicial ReviewProcedural Errors
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00229
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Patsis (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that Louiza Patsis, a linguist working for LIS, was an employee and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. LIS contended that Patsis was an independent contractor and challenged the Board's adherence to Department of Labor guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship. The court noted the control LIS exercised over its linguists through a written agreement and job assignments, and found no inconsistency with the Department of Labor guidelines.

unemployment insuranceemployment relationshipindependent contractorappellate divisionlabor lawunemployment benefitsstatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceadministrative reviewlegal interpreting
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00228 [201 AD3d 1164]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Debora (Legal Interpreting Servs., Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS) from decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board determined that Fausto Debora, a linguist, was an employee of LIS and that LIS was liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of an employment relationship. The court noted that LIS exercised sufficient control over its linguists by screening qualifications, negotiating pay, and assigning jobs, despite some flexibility offered to the linguists. The decision also dismissed LIS's argument regarding Department of Labor guidelines, stating no inconsistency was found with established common-law tests for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceLinguist ServicesControl TestDepartment of Labor GuidelinesEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
10
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. 03-99-00292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2000

Nancy J. Feagley v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd K. Brown Jack E. Abla Ramon Class O.D. Kenemore Royce Faulkner Richard F.Reynolds Donna Lynn Snyder Thomas A. Knapp Philip F. O'Neill Christopher L. Rhodes David Lewallen Mike Renfro

Nancy J. Feagley sued for a declaratory judgment against the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and others, after her claim for death benefits for her deceased husband was denied. The trial court in Travis County dismissed her suit for want of jurisdiction, finding the proper venue for judicial review of a death benefits decision was Tarrant County, where the employee resided. Feagley appealed, arguing her action was for statutory interpretation, not a benefits review, and that she would be deprived of judicial review. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding that Feagley's suit was substantively an action seeking judicial review of a death benefits decision, which must be brought in Tarrant County. The court also found no evidence of improper agency rulemaking.

Declaratory JudgmentJurisdictionVenueWorkers' CompensationDeath BenefitsAppeals Panel DecisionStatutory InterpretationHeart Attack RuleAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meckes v. Cina

Plaintiff Meckes, an employee of Seneca Steel, sought a lump-sum pension benefit after moving from a union-covered laborer position to a non-union foreman role, arguing his employment with the employer was "terminated" for plan purposes. The pension plan's trustees denied his claim, interpreting "terminated" as a complete severance of employment, an interpretation upheld on appeal. The Appellate Division reversed Special Term's decision, which had favored Meckes, stating that the trustees' interpretation should be reviewed under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard. The court found the trustees' construction of the termination clause to be reasonable, citing dictionary definitions, judicial precedent, and critical tax implications related to the plan's tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed Meckes's complaint.

Pension PlanTrustee DiscretionContract InterpretationERISAInternal Revenue CodeTax-Exempt StatusLump-Sum BenefitsEmployment TerminationArbitrary and Capricious StandardAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 3,297 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