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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. 70 Civ. 1374; 70 Civ. 1642
Regular Panel Decision

Socialist Workers Party v. Rockefeller

This consolidated suit challenged several sections of the New York State Election Law impacting independent political parties' access to the ballot for the November 1970 general election. Plaintiffs, including the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Labor Party, and Freedom and Peace Party, alleged that provisions such as signature distribution requirements, voter registration restrictions, witness authentication, literacy tests, and unequal access to voter lists unconstitutionally burdened minority parties and diluted voter rights. The three-judge court ruled certain sections unconstitutional, specifically the statewide signature distribution requirement, the prohibition on newly registered voters signing independent petitions, and the unequal provision of free voter lists to major parties. Conversely, the court upheld the disqualification for primary election voters, the English literacy test (deferring to Supreme Court precedent), and the appointment process for election commissioners. Other challenged provisions regarding dual petition signing and witness knowledge were deemed constitutionally permissible under specific judicial interpretations.

Election Law ChallengesIndependent Political PartiesVoter RightsBallot Access RestrictionsEqual Protection ClauseFirst Amendment FreedomsNominating PetitionsLiteracy TestsVoter ListsElection Commissioners
References
42
Case No. ADJ423557 (ANA 0341897)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

BARTOLLO TERRONES vs. REMEDY TEMP, RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, U.S. TILE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Select Staffing's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order compelling depositions and document production. Select argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over its non-party witnesses and demanded confidential financial documents. The WCAB found Labor Code Section 5710 allows compelling depositions of non-party witnesses, and the WCJ has jurisdiction to order production of the purchase agreement, with claims of privilege to be adjudicated later. No substantial prejudice to Select was found to warrant disturbing the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeposition of WitnessesMotion to Compel AttendanceNotice to ProduceStaffing AgencyGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Labor Code Section 5710
References
0
Case No. ADJ6873149
Regular
May 29, 2012

MIRIAN AVILA vs. CANADIAN AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) improperly interviewed non-party witnesses without the defendant's knowledge or consent, violating Labor Code section 4062.3 and AD Rule 35. The Appeals Board rescinded its order granting reconsideration, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision that these collateral interviews did not constitute prohibited ex parte communication. The majority held that the statute applies to communications between parties or their representatives and the QME, not to a QME's discussions with non-parties. Conversely, the dissenting commissioner argued that such interviews were impermissible under the spirit and letter of the law, constituting a denial of due process and advocating for the QME's report to be stricken.

PQMEnonparty witnessesex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3AD Rule 35oral interviewspetition to strikenew panelsubstantial evidencedue process
References
31
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2024

Hernandez v. Opera Owners, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Poltech Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay a third-party action. The court found that common-law claims against Poltech Inc. should be dismissed because the complaint did not allege a 'grave injury' as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 (1). Additionally, the remainder of the third-party action against Poltech Inc. was stayed because the contractual claims, asserted by third-party plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries of a contract involving Poltech, were subject to the contract's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryThird-Party ActionContractual DisputeADR ClauseAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissStay of ProceedingsThird-Party Beneficiary
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00671
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

76th & Broadway, LLC v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

This case originated from a third-party action where General Glass & Metal, LLC appealed a judgment dismissing its third-party answer and an order that, upon reconsideration, upheld the decision to strike its third-party answer and deny dismissal of the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, treated General Glass's motion to 'modify' as a motion for reargument, making the subsequent order appealable due to the motion court's address of its merits. The Supreme Court's decision to strike General Glass's answer was affirmed, as the record demonstrated a willful failure to comply with multiple court orders for deposition appearances, rather than an inability to locate a witness. Additionally, the court properly denied General Glass's motion for summary dismissal of the third-party complaint, confirming that the Workers' Compensation Law does not preclude third-party plaintiffs from seeking to enforce contractual indemnification and insurance coverage obligations. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the third-party answer was unanimously affirmed, and the appeal from the order was dismissed as subsumed by the appeal from the judgment.

reargumentappealabilityCPLRstriking answerdeposition non-compliancecontractual indemnificationinsurance coveragethird-party actionAppellate DivisionSupreme Court decision
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03098 [171 AD3d 1236]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2019

Shusterich v. Kleinman

Patricia Shusterich, the injured plaintiff, and her husband commenced an action against Aaron and Tispora Kleinman after she tripped on a raised sidewalk. The Kleinmans, as third-party plaintiffs, then sued David Young Park, an adjacent property owner, for contribution and indemnification, alleging he performed negligent sidewalk repair work. The plaintiffs also asserted a direct claim against Park. Park moved for summary judgment, arguing he had no duty to maintain the area as it didn't abut his property, and was exempt from statutory liability due to owning a single-family home. He also contended the work was done by an independent contractor without his request or payment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted Park's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, finding that Park established a prima facie case for non-liability and the opposing parties failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySidewalk DefectSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewProperty Owner LiabilityContributionIndemnificationTrip and Fall
References
9
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarrant County Democratic Party v. Steen

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees for the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP) and the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) from the Texas Secretary of State. The parties incurred fees defending an election contest lawsuit (Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis's eligibility for the State Senate. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity for such a suit and that the Brimer suit fees were 'in connection with' the primary election, given the broad interpretation of the phrase and the nature of the eligibility challenge. The court reversed the trial court's judgment denying reimbursement, rendered judgment for TCDP and TDP to receive their stipulated attorney's fees, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment, including the denial of attorney's fees for the underlying lawsuit due to the Secretary of State's discretionary authority.

Election LawAttorney FeesReimbursementSovereign Immunity WaiverElection ContestCandidate EligibilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureDeclaratory JudgmentUltra Vires Doctrine
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 9,690 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