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

United States v. Hunt

The defendant, Howard Hunt, an attorney, was indicted for conspiring to intimidate a prospective witness in a narcotics case. After being found guilty by a jury on January 19, 1967, Hunt filed a motion to quash the jury panel, alleging violations of federal statutory schemes for jury selection due to incorrect standards and inadequate sources for prospective jurors. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Graven, held a three-day hearing on the motion. The defendant's challenges primarily focused on alleged discrimination against Mexican-Americans and an imbalance in economic attainment and employment representation within the jury panel, specifically concerning Bexar County. The Court denied the motion, finding no evidence of impermissible selective judgment by suggesters, no significant disparity indicating discrimination against Mexican-Americans (especially when considering eligibility factors like age, citizenship, and English language proficiency), and no purposeful discrimination based on economic status or occupation, given the complexities of jury selection in metropolitan areas and the efforts made to ensure a broad cross-section of the community.

Jury SelectionJury PanelRacial DiscriminationJury QualificationsStatutory ComplianceCross-Section of CommunitySan Antonio DivisionBexar CountyFifth CircuitJudicial Conference
References
8
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
Mar 01, 1949

United States v. Foster

Defendants indicted for conspiracy to overthrow the government challenged the jury selection process in the Southern District of New York. They alleged systematic exclusion of the poor, minorities, women, and political affiliates, arguing that property qualifications and low juror fees were unconstitutional. Judge Medina conducted a six-week trial, reviewing extensive evidence from 1940-1949 jury records and witness testimonies. The court found no deliberate, willful, or systematic discrimination, concluding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The judge overruled the challenge and denied all motions, emphasizing the broad discretion in jury selection and rejecting the concept of proportional representation for jury lists.

Jury selection challengeSystematic exclusionJury discriminationEconomic statusRacial minoritiesWomen's rightsPolitical affiliationGrand jury panelPetit jury venireConstitutional challenge
References
6
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

Mendoza v. Ranger Insurance Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a workers' compensation case involving Mary Mendoza, who was initially denied total incapacity benefits for four weeks by a jury. The appellant argued that she was denied her constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury due to a lack of randomness in the jury impaneling process, specifically a disproportionate number of teachers on the panel. The appeals court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting a mistrial, as the appellant was unable to timely object to the jury panel's impermissible selection process. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Jury SelectionJury PanelVoir DireMistrialWorkers' CompensationLack of RandomnessFair TrialImpartial JuryTarrant CountyTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Insurance Co. v. Garcia

Nicandro Garcia, an employee, was injured in 1995 while working and filed a workers' compensation claim. After surgeries and receiving a 15% whole body impairment rating, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel denied his application for supplemental income benefits. Garcia subsequently filed suit against The Home Insurance Company, which was the appellant in this case, seeking a review of the TWCC Appeals Panel’s decisions. A jury trial ruled in Garcia's favor, and the trial court awarded attorney's fees. The Home Insurance Company appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding Garcia's ability to work and his good faith in seeking employment, a jury instruction, and the attorney's fee award. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on the sufficiency issues and the jury instruction but reversed the attorney's fee award, stating there was no statutory basis for it when the employee disputes a commission finding.

Workers' Compensation AppealSupplemental Income BenefitsImpairment RatingAttorney's Fees ReversalLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceJury Instructions ReviewAbuse of Discretion StandardTexas Labor Code ApplicationEmployment Search Good Faith
References
23
Case No. 05-19-01541-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2023

Great Divide Insurance Company v. Alcus Reshod Fortenberry

This appeal arose from a workers’ compensation judicial review where Alcus Reshod Fortenberry sought to overturn a decision by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation’s appeals panel (DWC Appeals Panel). The DWC Appeals Panel had affirmed a hearing officer’s denial of Fortenberry's claim for temporary income benefits, based on a presumed election of benefits under his NFL collective bargaining agreement. After a jury trial awarded Fortenberry benefits, the case was appealed. On remand from the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that Fortenberry, as the appealing party, failed to meet his burden of proof and obtain a jury finding that he did not elect to receive greater benefits under his collective bargaining agreement, which was a prerequisite for entitlement to workers' compensation benefits. Consequently, the appellate court rendered judgment in accordance with the DWC Appeals Panel’s original decision.

Workers' CompensationProfessional AthleteElection of BenefitsJudicial ReviewModified De Novo ReviewTemporary Income BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingCollective Bargaining AgreementTexas Labor Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pena v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal regarding a jury's finding that plaintiff Pedro Pena was not a special employee of the defendant, following an accident resulting in personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, had previously set aside the jury verdict and ordered a new trial. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's decision to set aside the jury verdict, thereby upholding the jury's original finding. Additionally, the defendant's cross-appeal for judgment as a matter of law was denied. The court emphasized that determining a special employment relationship is a question of fact for the jury, with several factors to consider. Ultimately, costs were awarded to the plaintiffs, affirming the jury's initial determination.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury DamagesEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityQuestion of FactTrial Court ReversalCosts Awarded
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,893 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