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. 85-4442
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Fashing

This opinion addresses a mandamus petition filed by an unnamed Relator, identified as Kessler's workers' compensation carrier. The Relator sought to compel the Respondent, a judge from El Paso County Court at Law Number Two, to rescind a discovery order. The underlying case, Ricardo Rubio v. Kessler Premium Castings Company, involved Rubio's claim of wrongful discharge after filing workers' compensation claims for two separate job injuries. Rubio alleged he was fired in retaliation for his compensation claims, violating Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. He sought discovery of the Relator’s claim file, which the Relator resisted based on privilege under Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d). After an in camera inspection, the Respondent ordered disclosure of parts of the file, primarily concerning Rubio's earlier back injury claim. The court denied the Relator's petition for mandamus relief, reasoning that the 'occurrence or transaction upon which the suit is based' for wrongful discharge is the discharge itself, not the antecedent injury claim, thus not falling under the discovery privilege for investigations related to the claim.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeWorkers' CompensationWrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeDiscovery PrivilegeIn Camera InspectionTexas Civil ProcedureInsurance Claim FileCause of Action
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2006

Wagner v. Merit Distribution

The plaintiff, Charles Wagner, an African-American, sued Merit Distribution, Inc., James Austin, Sr., James Austin, Jr., and Austin Truck & Trailer Repair Center, LLC under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging race discrimination, a racially hostile work environment, and retaliatory termination. Wagner also brought a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing against individual liability, the applicability of § 1981 to retaliation claims, and the merits of Wagner's discrimination claims. The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the race discrimination, hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, as well as the retaliation claim based on internal complaints, finding sufficient issues of material fact. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted for the retaliation claim specifically based on the filing of an EEOC charge, as the defendants had no knowledge of it at the time of termination.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. § 1981Title VIIAt-will EmploymentEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityPretext
References
69
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Notaro v. Koch

The plaintiffs (James Notaro, George Longworth, and Pearse O’Callaghan), members of the Liberal Party, sued Edward Koch, Mayor of New York City and a gubernatorial candidate, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. They claimed Koch threatened to fire Liberal Party members from state payroll if elected Governor and sought a permanent injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery to depose Koch within 30 days. The court denied this motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a strong probability of success on the merits, a connection between expedited discovery and avoiding injury, or that their potential injury outweighed the defendant's burden. The court also noted weaknesses in their legal arguments, including prematurity and lack of state action, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing them to refile with a stronger case.

Political AffiliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechExpedited DiscoveryCivil RightsIrreparable InjuryPreliminary InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)Constitutional LawGubernatorial Election
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. A.P. 195-1539-352
Regular Panel Decision

Shapiro v. Halberstram (In Re Halberstram)

This bankruptcy court decision addresses two motions: the Debtor-Defendant's motion to dismiss an 11 U.S.C. § 523 adversary proceeding and the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions due to discovery non-compliance. The Debtor-Defendant sought dismissal based on procedural irregularities in the summons and complaint, including an incorrect case number, lack of required information, and an unsigned complaint. The court acknowledged the defects but ruled that the Debtor-Defendant's timely answer and active participation without objection constituted a waiver of the service issues. It also found that the deficiencies in the complaint were technical and not fatal, especially since the initial counsel was already sanctioned. Ultimately, both motions were denied, and the court urged the Plaintiffs to obtain new counsel and proceed with discovery to reach the merits of the dispute.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingMotion to DismissSanctionsProcedural DefectsSummonsComplaintWaiver of ServicePersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tobias Holdings, Inc. v. Bank United Corp.

Plaintiff has brought a federal securities fraud action alleging violations of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, along with state common law claims for fraud, breach of contract, conspiracy, and tortious interference, with federal jurisdiction over the state claims based on diversity of citizenship. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The central legal question is whether the automatic stay of discovery provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), which applies to federal securities claims, also stays discovery for plaintiff's non-fraud state law claims when jurisdiction over such claims is based on diversity. The court, after examining statutory construction and legislative history, concludes that an unduly broad application of the PSLRA's automatic stay would penalize plaintiffs and encourage inefficient duplication of effort by forcing separate state court actions for common law claims. Therefore, the court held that the PSLRA cannot prohibit discovery on non-fraud common law claims arising under diversity jurisdiction, and discovery relating to these claims shall proceed forthwith.

Securities Litigation Reform ActDiscovery StayDiversity JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsSecurities FraudBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceStatutory InterpretationJudicial Efficiency
References
21
Case No. 14-0530
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2015

Bnsf Railway Company v. James E. Phillips

This Reply Brief on the Merits by BNSF Railway Company contests the appellate court's judgment affirming a jury's findings in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case involving James E. Phillips. BNSF argues that Phillips failed to provide legally sufficient and reliable expert testimony to establish causation for his spinal injuries, particularly concerning epidemiological studies. The brief also asserts that Phillips's FELA claim was untimely, as evidence indicated his awareness of the injury and its work-related cause before the statutory deadline. Additionally, BNSF challenges the finding of liability under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) based on general complaints and argues for the erroneous exclusion of contributory negligence and certain rebuttal evidence. BNSF requests the Supreme Court of Texas to reverse the appellate court's judgment and render judgment in its favor or remand for a new trial.

FELACausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological EvidenceTimelinessStatute of LimitationsLocomotive Inspection Act (LIA)Contributory NegligenceEvidentiary RulingsAppellate Review
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 11,013 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