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

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

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. 2-05-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2008

Margaret Young, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of William R. Young v. Venkateswarlu Thota, M.D. and North Texas Cardiology Center

Appellant Margaret Young appealed an adverse jury verdict in a medical malpractice case against Dr. Thota and North Texas Cardiology Center, stemming from her deceased husband William R. Young's cardiac catheterization. Young alleged Dr. Thota's negligence caused an arterial tear and subsequent complications due to improper catheter placement and failure to diagnose. The trial court's jury charge included instructions on William Young's contributory negligence and Dr. Thota's new and independent cause. The appellate court found errors in the jury charge regarding the submission of contributory negligence as a liability theory instead of a damages mitigation instruction, and the inclusion of a new and independent cause instruction for Dr. Thota. Concluding that these errors were harmful and precluded a fair trial, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Medical MalpracticeContributory NegligenceJury Charge ErrorProximate CauseHarm AnalysisInferential Rebuttal InstructionsUnavoidable AccidentNew and Independent CauseCardiac CatheterizationArterial Laceration
References
69
Case No. 13-03-028-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

Gayle King v. State

The case involves Gayle King's appeal after being convicted by a jury of two counts of promoting a pyramid promotional scheme and one count of theft by deception. The trial court sentenced King to concurrent sentences of two years in a State Jail facility, probated for five years, a fine, and restitution. King raised eight issues on appeal, challenging the trial court's denial of a jury charge instruction, restitution order, constitutionality of the statute, legal sufficiency of evidence for the convictions, selective prosecution, omission of a knowledge element in the jury charge, double jeopardy, and denial of a new trial motion. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the pyramid scheme and theft convictions, no error in the jury instructions, and no constitutional violations or double jeopardy issues.

Pyramid schemeTheft by deceptionCriminal appealJury convictionLegal sufficiency of evidenceDouble jeopardyJury charge instructionMistake of fact defenseConstitutional challengeStatutory overbreadth
References
60
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. 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

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

United States v. Wallace

This Memorandum and Order addresses two jury charging issues in a criminal case where an unnamed corrections officer is accused of making false statements to the Internal Revenue Service regarding tax refund applications. The defendant, influenced by literature from a coworker, claimed his wages were not taxable income. Senior District Judge Weinstein ruled that the defense is entitled to an instruction incorporating the Cheek v. United States standard, requiring the government to prove the defendant knew his view of tax law was wrong. Conversely, the court granted the government's request for a deliberate ignorance instruction, allowing the jury to consider if the defendant consciously avoided learning the truth about his tax obligations. The order provides detailed jury instructions on 'knowingly' submitting a 'false or fictitious claim' and the burden of proof regarding the defendant's good-faith belief.

Criminal LawTax FraudFalse StatementsJury InstructionsKnowledge of LawDeliberate IgnoranceWillfulnessTax EvasionInternal Revenue ServiceFederal Taxation
References
5
Case No. 06-08-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2008

Rigdon Marine Corporation v. Bobby Roberts, Jr.

Captain Bobby Roberts, Jr. sued his employer, Rigdon Marine Company, under the Jones Act for negligence and failure to provide a seaworthy crew and vessel following a brutal beating by crew members aboard the *Iberville*. A jury awarded Roberts $1,505,000, including $1,150,000 for lost future earning capacity. Rigdon Marine Company appealed the jury's findings on negligence, unseaworthiness, and the earning capacity award, also challenging the trial court's denial of proposed jury instructions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and ruling that the requested instructions were properly denied as misleading embellishments to standard jury charges.

Jones ActUnseaworthinessMaritime LawSeaman InjuryEmployer NegligenceLost Earning CapacityAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsAssault on VesselCrew Misconduct
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 5,015 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