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. 04-06-00372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2007

Avelardo Miranda v. Maria T. Miranda

Avelardo and Maria Miranda divorced in 1974. In 1978, Maria obtained a default judgment in Texas for a division of military retirement benefits and child support from Avelardo. In 2006, Maria filed a motion to change the method of payment of Avelardo's military retirement benefits, which the trial court granted, holding it had the power to modify the 1978 order nunc pro tunc. On appeal, Avelardo contended the trial court lacked plenary power and improperly modified the judgment. The appellate court concluded that the trial court's modification was a judicial error, not a clerical one, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revise the 1978 judgment after its plenary power expired. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and rendered in favor of Avelardo Miranda.

Divorce LawMilitary Retirement BenefitsChild Support OrderNunc Pro Tunc JudgmentClerical ErrorJudicial ErrorPlenary PowerJurisdictionDefault JudgmentModification of Judgment
References
5
Case No. 04-08-00311-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2009

FIRE AND CAS. INS. CO. OF CONN. v. Miranda

Javier Miranda, an appellee, was diagnosed with Hepatitis C after two minor work-related injuries and claimed it as an occupational disease. The Texas Worker's Compensation Commission (TWCC) and the trial court found that Fire & Casualty Insurance Company of Connecticut, the appellant, waived its right to contest compensability by failing to dispute the claim within the statutory period, based on previous case law. The Court of Appeals, however, noted that the relied-upon precedent, *Continental Cas. Co. v. Downs*, was overruled by *Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., L.P. v. Mitchell*. Crucially, the court distinguished between accidental injuries and occupational diseases regarding notice requirements. It ruled that Fire & Casualty's waiver for the initial laceration claim did not extend to the occupational disease claim, for which it had timely disputed after receiving notice of the Hepatitis C diagnosis. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of Fire & Casualty, also dismissing Miranda's untimely cross-appeal for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseHepatitis CWaiver of CompensabilityStatutory DeadlinesTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimNotice RequirementJudicial Review Timeliness
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. 01-10-01022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2012

Jesus Miranda v. Stephen Byles

This dissenting opinion addresses a defamation suit where Jesus Miranda was found liable for statements regarding alleged child sexual abuse by Stephen Byles. Miranda, the great-uncle of the alleged victim (L.S.), had urged an investigation into Byles's actions. The trial court denied Miranda immunity under Texas Family Code section 261.106 and awarded Byles $75,000. Justice Keyes dissents from the majority's decision to affirm, arguing that Miranda's statements were protected by statutory immunity for reporting child abuse, made in good faith during an ongoing investigation. She contends that the trial court's immunity finding was erroneous and proposes that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or reversed on the merits, as Byles failed to prove the statements were false statements of fact or made with malice.

DefamationChild AbuseImmunityFamily LawTexas LawAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional ErrorDissenting OpinionSexual Abuse AllegationsReporting Child Abuse
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fire and Casualty Insurance Company of Connecticut, (APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE) v. Javier Miranda, (APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT)

Javier Miranda, an employee, claimed he contracted Hepatitis C from workplace injuries, which his employer's insurer, Fire & Casualty, disputed. The Texas Worker's Compensation Commission (TWCC) and the trial court found Fire & Casualty waived its right to contest compensability by failing to dispute the claim within seven days of initial injury notice. The appellate court reversed, ruling that for an occupational disease, the insurer has sixty days to dispute from the date it receives notice of the disease, not the initial injury. Therefore, Fire & Casualty did not waive its right regarding the Hepatitis C claim. The court also upheld the dismissal of Miranda's untimely request for judicial review.

Worker's CompensationOccupational DiseaseHepatitis CWaiver of CompensabilityNotice of InjuryTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationTimeliness
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Bank Note Co. v. State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,762 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