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. 15-25-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2025

Francisca Okonkwo, Administrative Law Judge, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, in Her Official Capacity and Fort Bend County v. Joshua David Heiliger, Individually, and on Behalf of the Estate of Lauren Brittane Smith, and on Behalf of Death Benefits Beneficiaries Joshua David Heiliger and Emma Destiny Heiliger

Fort Bend County appeals a temporary injunction granted by a Harris County District Court, which prevents discovery of mental health records in an ongoing workers' compensation dispute. The underlying administrative case involves a claim for death benefits by Joshua Heiliger, whose spouse, Lauren Brittane Smith, was a paramedic. Heiliger asserts Smith's mental health condition and stress contributed to her death, thus placing her mental health at issue. The Division of Workers' Compensation's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a subpoena for Smith's mental health records from her psychiatrist, Dr. John Marcellus. Heiliger bypassed the administrative process by obtaining the injunction in District Court. Fort Bend County argues the District Court erred in interfering with the Division's exclusive jurisdiction and that Heiliger failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate irreparable injury, as Texas law provides a qualified privilege for mental health records with exceptions relevant to this case.

Workers' CompensationTemporary InjunctionDiscovery DisputeMental Health RecordsSubpoena EnforcementAdministrative Law JudgeExclusive JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesQualified PrivilegePatient-Litigant Exception
References
53
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Curtis Daniels v. Mary Daniels

This appellate case, Curtis Michael Daniels v. Mary Freels Daniels, concerns the division of marital property and alimony in a divorce. Mary Freels Daniels appealed the trial court's decision regarding her share of Mr. Daniels' retirement benefits, the overall marital estate division, and her eligibility for rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. However, it reversed and remanded the decision concerning Mr. Daniels' unvested TVA pension, ruling it a marital asset subject to equitable division, and provided guidelines for its valuation.

Divorce LawMarital AssetsPension RightsUnvested BenefitsAlimonySpousal SupportProperty DivisionEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureRemand
References
20
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. 02A01-9709-CV-00231
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Sarah Wilkerson v. Robert Wilkerson

This is a divorce case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning the distribution of marital property. The trial court awarded the husband $25,000, representing 38.5% of the marital home's value, and the remainder of the marital property to the wife as alimony in solido, having considered the husband's fault. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in considering fault in the division of marital property and in failing to include all marital assets, such as both parties' automobiles and the husband's pension, in the marital estate. The court also determined that the presumption of equal marital property distribution was not overcome. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions for an equal, 50/50, division of marital property before addressing the issue of alimony.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAppellate ReviewFault in DivorceEquitable DistributionPension ValuationAutomobile ClassificationSpousal SupportTennessee Family Law
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01290
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Estate of Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corp.

Decedent Norman Youngjohn suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow. Prior to the finalization of his schedule loss of use (SLU) award, he passed away from unrelated causes. His estate, as claimant, sought the full SLU award. However, the Workers' Compensation Board limited the payment to reasonable funeral expenses, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (4) (d). The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the statutory interpretation, concluding that only the portion of the SLU award accrued at the time of death, along with reasonable funeral expenses, is payable to the estate. The court modified the Board's decision and remitted the matter for recalculation of the amount owed.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPost-Mortem AwardEstate ClaimsFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationLump-Sum PaymentAccrued BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00878 [158 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2018

Matter of Estate of James Yoo v. Rockwell Compounding Assoc., Inc.

James Yoo, a pharmacy student, died from fentanyl intoxication during an externship at Rockwell Compounding Associates, Inc. His mother commenced an action against Rockwell, alleging negligence, which was referred by Supreme Court to the Workers' Compensation Board to determine if an employer-employee relationship existed. The Board concluded that such a relationship did exist. The estate appealed this interlocutory decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, asserting that piecemeal review of workers' compensation issues should be avoided, and the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship is not a threshold legal issue warranting review before a final decision on the death benefits claim.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipInterlocutory AppealSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewFentanyl IntoxicationWrongful DeathDeath Benefits ClaimJudicial DismissalPiecemeal Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,588 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