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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

John Klumb, Veronica McClelland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and the City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Barbara Chelette, David L. Long, Lenard Polk, Roy Sanchez, and Lonnie Vara

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. M2012-02348-COA-R9-CV, 07C1158, 05C3627
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2013

Kathleen Baker and Rick Baker v. Deborah A. Snedegar

Plaintiff filed suit against a medical legal examiner alleging the medical legal examiner was negligent in failing to inform her of certain preventative medications. The medical legal examiner contended she was a government employee protected from liability by the Governmental Tort Liability Act and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion because the medical legal examiner could not prove she was paid by the payroll department of the governmental entity at issue, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-107(a)(2). The medical legal examiner appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the defendant did not satisfy the second requirement of subsection 107(a)(2) as she was paid from a professional services account as a vendor, not an employee. The Court found that Ms. Snedegar's interpretation of the statute would render the term 'payroll' meaningless and would inappropriately broaden the definition of a governmental employee.

Governmental Tort Liability ActMedical Legal ExaminerGovernment Employee DefinitionSummary Judgment AppealPayroll Department DistinctionProfessional Services AccountVendor StatusSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationNegligence Claim
References
13
Case No. 03-90-271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1992

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division, State of Texas v. Jesse Mae Blaine

The Director of the State Employees Workers' Compensation Division (appellant) appealed an adverse judgment in a workers' compensation case involving Jessie Mae Blaine (appellee). Blaine, an employee of Austin State School, developed tuberculosis and subsequently peripheral neuropathy from her medication, leading to a fall and back injury. She claimed total and permanent incapacity. The Director sought a reduction in benefits due to Blaine's pre-existing conditions (arthritis, COPD, Hepatitis B). The jury found in Blaine's favor, a verdict affirmed by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, addressing complaints regarding jury charge wording, definitions of occupational disease, and the sufficiency of evidence concerning causation and incapacity.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTuberculosisPeripheral NeuropathyArthritisJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidenceMedical CausationAggravationContribution
References
24
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 of AFL-CIO

The case involves two plaintiffs, Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge, who were terminated from their union organizer and business agent positions by Local 100 and HEREIU in 1992. They filed age discrimination complaints, alleging derogatory comments and a desire for 'young blood.' The defendants argued the terminations were for cause due to an FBI investigation into corruption, bribery, and RICO violations within the union, implicating the plaintiffs. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the Appellate Division reversed, finding defendants presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for termination that plaintiffs failed to prove were pretextual. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationLabor LawUnion CorruptionRICO ViolationsPretextPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofNew York CourtsAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broadhurst v. Employees Retirement System

Nancy Broadhurst, a Child Protective Services specialist, sought occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after suffering a back injury. The Board of Trustees for ERS denied her application, concluding her disability did not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disability," specifically the requirement that the injury result from an "inherent risk or hazard peculiar to a duty." Broadhurst appealed the decision, arguing the Board misinterpreted the statute and that her injury, though occurring while sitting in a chair, was related to the increased risks of her job. The district court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the act causing the injury (sitting in a chair) was not peculiar to her duties, and thus she did not satisfy the statutory criteria.

Occupational DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Government CodeInherent RiskPeculiar HazardState Employee BenefitsBack Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. 03-01-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2002

Henrietta Flores v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Henrietta Flores, a social services aide, was severely injured in a car accident while performing her duties. She applied for occupational disability benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS), which were denied by the Board despite an ALJ recommendation. The district court affirmed the Board's denial. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and the Board’s order, holding that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Court found the Board erred in its reweighing of adjudicative facts, its unexplained changes to findings and conclusions, and its failure to provide notice of a new policy on preexisting conditions. Furthermore, the Court determined the Board misinterpreted the statutory definition of occupational disability, clarifying the 'primary-cause' standard for disability resulting from an injury and the 'peculiar risk' standard for state employment duties. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Occupational DisabilityCar Accident InjuryPreexisting ConditionAge-Related DegenerationAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionStatutory InterpretationCausation StandardPrimary CausePeculiar Risk
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 12,615 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