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

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

Mike Mandlbauer, injured in a forklift accident in 1992, had his claim disputed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after later medical findings contradicted an earlier MRI. A district court jury found Mandlbauer's current symptoms and disability were not a result of the 1992 injury. On appeal, Mandlbauer complained about the trial court's refusal to include a "sole cause" inferential rebuttal instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Mandlbauer, as the plaintiff, lacked standing to complain about the omission of a defense-oriented "sole cause" instruction. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Mandlbauer's other issues.

Jury InstructionsSole CauseInferential RebuttalStandingAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationProducing CauseTexas LawTrial Court ErrorHarmful Error
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marathon Oil Co. v. Sterner

James E. Sterner, an independent contractor's employee, was awarded $25,000 for personal injuries sustained on Marathon Oil Company's premises due to gas exposure. Marathon appealed the judgment, arguing a lack of evidence for negligence and improper jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur. The jury found Marathon negligent and its negligence proximately caused Sterner's injuries. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the jury was entitled to conclude negligence based on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, as the accident would not ordinarily happen absent negligence and the instrumentality was under Marathon's control. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Personal InjuryNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturAppellate LawJury VerdictProximate CausePremises LiabilityIndependent Contractor LiabilityWorkplace AccidentGas Exposure Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2009

Ramirez v. Willow Ridge Country Club, Inc.

This judgment affirms the dismissal of a complaint after a jury trial in New York County. The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at Willow Ridge Country Club, Inc., claimed he fell from a deck with a removed railing, while the foreman stated he fell from ladders while pulling a gutter. The jury found a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation but determined it was not the proximate cause, accepting the foreman's account. The appellate court upheld the verdict, addressing the plaintiff's challenges regarding jury instructions on attorney-client privilege and the preclusion of an unsigned deposition transcript under CPLR 3116. The court found no grounds to overturn the jury's decision or the trial court's rulings.

Demolition accidentJury verdictLabor Law violationProximate causeCPLR 3116Attorney-client privilegeAppellate affirmancePersonal injuryConstruction safetyWitness testimony
References
10
Case No. 04-14-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2015

Andrea Collie v. IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto General Agency, Ltd. D/B/A Pronto Insurance

Andrea Collie sued IBEX Staffing Solutions, Inc. and Pronto Insurance for race discrimination and retaliatory discharge. A jury found in favor of the appellees. Collie appealed, arguing the trial court erred by not providing a permissive-pretext instruction to the jury. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's discretion in jury instructions, noting that the jury question tracked the Texas Pattern Jury Charge and correctly placed the burden of proof on Collie. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the requested instruction was not reasonably necessary for a proper verdict.

Race DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeJury InstructionsPermissive-Pretext InstructionAbuse of DiscretionTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. C.C.A. No. 01C01-9610-CC-00425
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1997

State v. Ray Vance

The defendant, Ray Vance, appealed his conviction of aggravated sexual battery in Stewart County Circuit Court. He was serving a ten-year sentence for the conviction. Vance raised three issues on appeal: whether the court erred in disallowing corroborative testimony about the victim's sexual maturity, whether the court erred in instructing the jury on release eligibility dates, and whether the evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error regarding the evidence exclusion, jury instructions, or sufficiency of the evidence. The court noted that the defendant failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of Rule 412 regarding sexual behavior evidence and found the jury instruction on sentencing to be harmless.

Aggravated Sexual BatteryChild Sexual AbuseHymenal TearsRule 412 EvidenceRelease EligibilitySufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsCompromise VerdictAppellate ReviewCriminal Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. State

This is an appeal from jury convictions for two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity, specifically bribery and aggravated theft. The Appellant, Albert Rodriguez, owner of Lamco, was found guilty of orchestrating a kickback scheme involving fraudulent invoices with the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) and bribing EPISD employees. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, addressing numerous legal issues raised by Rodriguez, including the sufficiency of accomplice witness testimony, the denial of severance for the criminal counts, issues with subpoenas, indictment defects, jury charge instructions, and the admissibility of evidence summaries. The court found no reversible error in the trial court's proceedings.

Criminal appealOrganized crimeBriberyAggravated theftFraudKickbacksAccomplice testimonySufficiency of evidenceJury chargeTrial procedure
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,964 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