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

Sweeney v. Barnhart

Robert Sweeney, the claimant, appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Sweeney alleged disability due to depression, but also had a significant history of alcohol and substance abuse, which led to job termination and arrests. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that while Sweeney had severe impairments, his drug and alcohol addiction was a material contributing factor to his disability. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that without the effects of substance abuse, Sweeney retained the capacity to perform his past relevant work, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSubstance AbuseAlcohol DependenceDepressionAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityMental Impairment
References
24
Case No. 02-11-00045-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Tayton Seth Finley v. Marguerite Breanne Finley

Tayton Seth Finley appealed the final decree of divorce from Marguerite Breanne Finley (Lilley) and a protective order. Finley raised issues concerning the permanent injunction, child support, attorney's fees, and property division. The Court of Appeals dissolved the permanent injunction, finding it was not properly pleaded, and modified the final decree accordingly. The court affirmed the divorce and protective order, determining that there was sufficient evidence for the protective order and no abuse of discretion in the awards for child support and attorney's fees. Finley's challenges to the property division and the denial of his motion for new trial were also rejected.

DivorceProtective OrderChild SupportAttorney's FeesProperty DivisionPermanent InjunctionDue ProcessSufficiency of EvidenceMootnessCollateral Consequences
References
51
Case No. 14-19-00883-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2021

Marguerite Tamasy v. Lone Star College System

Marguerite Tamasy sued Lone Star College System for breach of her employment contract, alleging that Lone Star failed to contribute to her Optional Retirement Program (ORP) account, instead erroneously forwarding funds to the Texas Retirement System (TRS) for fourteen years. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Lone Star. On appeal, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that Tamasy raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Lone Star breached its contractual obligation to continue her ORP participation. Additionally, the court concluded that the Texas Government Code § 830.108, which provides a procedure for correcting such errors, was not intended to be an exclusive remedy, thereby allowing Tamasy's breach of contract claim to proceed.

Employment Contract BreachPension Plan DisputeOptional Retirement ProgramTexas Retirement SystemSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationExclusive RemedySovereign Immunity WaiverGovernment Code
References
37
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08613 [167 AD3d 1222]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Matter of Sweeney v. Air Stream A.C. Co.

Claimant Charles Sweeney III sustained a work-related right bicep injury in August 2016. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision on October 3, 2017, awarded him benefits for a 30% schedule loss of use of his right arm. Subsequently, the claimant alleged that the State Insurance Fund failed to make timely payment as per Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). However, at a November 2017 hearing, the claimant's counsel accepted documentation from the State Insurance Fund, leading the WCLJ to find the payment timely. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant's application for review, citing his failure to object to the WCLJ's ruling during the hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the timeliness of payment was a factual issue that should have been developed at the hearing, and the claimant's counsel did not interpose a specific objection.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewTimely PaymentPenalty ProvisionWCLJ DecisionBoard ApplicationProcedural ComplianceWaiver of ObjectionSchedule Loss of UseInsurance Carrier Liability
References
1
Case No. 2018-06-0556
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2018

Sweeney, Stephen v. Jones Brothers

Employee Stephen Sweeney sustained a workplace injury, initially accepted by employer Jones Brothers, who provided temporary disability and medical benefits. Following further investigation, Jones Brothers ceased benefits and filed a Petition for Benefit Determination. Despite being notified, Mr. Sweeney failed to appear at a scheduling hearing, respond to a motion for summary judgment, or designate a medical expert to counter Jones Brothers' expert, Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood, who found no causal link between the injury and employment. Consequently, the Court granted Jones Brothers' motion for summary judgment, ruling that Mr. Sweeney could not establish medical causation, and dismissed the claim with prejudice.

Summary judgmentMedical causationExpert witnessFailure to prosecuteWorkers' compensation claimProcedural defaultDismissal with prejudiceTennessee lawPetition for Benefit DeterminationScheduling order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. Taco Bell, Inc.

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice MEYEES, argues against the enforceability of a release signed by Sweeney in a case involving Taco Bell. Drawing parallels with *Williams v. Glash*, the dissent asserts that there is a material issue of fact concerning mutual mistake. Key points include Sweeney not having bargained for a wrongful termination settlement, the minimal consideration allocated for such a claim, and the lack of knowledge from both parties regarding a wrongful termination suit at the time of signing. The opinion further differentiates the present case from *Torchia v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co.*, which dealt with a bad faith claim rather than unknown personal injuries. Consequently, Justice MEYEES concludes that the evidence warrants a genuine issue of material fact regarding the release's validity.

Mutual MistakeRelease EnforceabilityWrongful TerminationPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ClaimContract InterpretationObjective CircumstancesLack of ConsiderationUnknown InjuryTexas Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. Riverbay Corp.

Plaintiff Margaret Sweeney sought damages for injuries sustained after tripping over a garden hose on a sidewalk managed by defendant Riverbay Corporation. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the hazard open and obvious. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that even if the condition was open and obvious, the defendant still had a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. A triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the hose had been present for a sufficient time to establish constructive notice, thus reinstating the complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that 30 minutes was an insufficient period for the defendant to have constructive notice of the condition across its 300-acre property, advocating to affirm the summary judgment.

Premises LiabilityTripping HazardGarden HoseSidewalk SafetySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeOpen and ObviousDuty to MaintainAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
13
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 395
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1996

CAYUGA-ONONDAGA BD v. Sweeney

In a case brought by the Commissioner of Labor, the Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) was found to have violated Labor Law § 220 by failing to pay prevailing wages to employees on a lighting improvement project for the Auburn City School District. BOCES appealed, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to file a timely notice of claim and adhere to the statute of limitations under Education Law § 3813. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that prevailing wage enforcement proceedings under Labor Law § 220 vindicate a public interest, making the notice of claim and statute of limitations requirements of Education Law § 3813 inapplicable. The Court also rejected BOCES' argument that the employees' civil service classification exempted them from prevailing wage requirements.

Prevailing wagePublic worksLabor LawEducation LawNotice of claimStatute of limitationsPublic interest doctrineCivil serviceMunicipal contractsSchool district liability
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinen v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney for disability discrimination based on perceived alcoholism, violating the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). A jury found for the plaintiffs under the NYCHRL and awarded damages. Defendants filed Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 post-trial motions. The court partially granted the Rule 50(b) motion, vacating punitive damages against Commissioner Kelly, but denied all other Rule 50(b) claims and the entire Rule 59 motion. The decision upheld compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney, finding sufficient evidence of his malice or reckless indifference.

DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityAlcoholismNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Punitive Damages
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Stone v. Sweeney

Petitioners, public assistance recipients in a Work Experience Program (WEP), sought to compel the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) to allow their designated representative, the National Employment Law Project, Inc. (NELP), to be present during worksite inspections and complaint investigation conferences as per the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA). The Supreme Court denied their application and dismissed the petition. This judgment was subsequently affirmed. The court determined that DOL's refusal aligned with PESHA, which restricts 'authorized employee representatives' to employees and union representatives, thereby excluding NELP. This limitation was deemed a rational measure to prevent workplace disruption by outsiders and was not arbitrary, capricious, or a violation of equal protection clauses.

Public Employee Safety and Health ActWork Experience ProgramEmployee RepresentationWorkplace InspectionWorkplace SafetyAdministrative LawEqual ProtectionLabor LawSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 43 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