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. 03-15-00446-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2015

Baxter Oil Service, Ltd. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

The trial court erred in granting the TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction. By the Order entered in connection with the Voda Site, the TCEQ attempts to impose monetary obligations on Baxter. Baxter is entitled to due process before it is deprived by the TCEQ of such property. Due process requires both adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Order fails to comport with due process because it does not provide adequate notice. Specifically, the Order not only fails to inform Baxter of its appellate remedies, but affirmatively misrepresents the finality of the Order. The Order also fails to inform Baxter of the possible scope of its liability, thereby leaving Baxter with insufficient information with which to determine whether to fight the Order. Because the Order fails to comport with due process, it is void. And because the Order is void, it may be collaterally attacked. Accordingly, the TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction, which argued that Baxter could not collaterally attack the Order by means of a summary judgment motion, was without merit.

Environmental RemediationDue Process ViolationAdministrative OrderCollateral AttackSuperfund LitigationTexas AppealsProperty DeprivationNotice RequirementsRegulatory EnforcementGovernmental Immunity
References
73
Case No. 08-01-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2002

Albertson's, Inc. v. Lara, Eyna

Albertson's, Inc. appealed a trial court's finding that notice regarding an injured former employee's impairment rating was insufficient. Eyna Lara, the injured employee, received a report from Dr. Hollander certifying maximum medical improvement (MMI) and a 5 percent impairment rating (IR), along with a Form TWCC-69 containing a handwritten 'not valid' notation, and Form EES-19. Lara did not dispute the rating within the 90-day period stipulated by Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Rule 130.5(e). The trial court concluded that the notice was insufficient to trigger the 90-day rule, thus preventing the rating from becoming final. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the misleading nature of the forms, particularly the 'not valid' notation, rendered the notice inadequate to inform Lara of her rights and obligations, and thus did not trigger the 90-day dispute period.

Impairment RatingWorkers' CompensationMaximum Medical ImprovementNotice RequirementsTexas Administrative CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionDue ProcessStipulated FactsTimeliness of Dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder filed a lawsuit against Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action, production of contact information for potential class members from April 2005 to April 2011, and court authorization to circulate a Notice of Pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard required at this stage. Additionally, the court granted the request for defendants to produce contact information for a six-year period to account for state law claims, emphasizing judicial economy. The court also authorized the dissemination of the proposed notice, with minor modifications regarding the inclusion of defense counsel's contact details and clarification on potential costs and discovery obligations for opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSACollective ActionOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawConditional CertificationNotice of PendencyStatute of LimitationsDiscovery of Class MembersWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. ADJ739750 (FRE 0217695), ADJ3422922 (FRE 0217696), ADJ4620151 (FRE 0217213)
Regular
Aug 26, 2010

JERRY WILLIAMS vs. GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded prior findings, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings due to insufficient documentation regarding credit for benefits paid and resolution of EDD liens. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction on SCIF for failing to comply with the mandatory rule requiring a computer printout of benefits paid. This failure to provide essential information caused unnecessary delay and appeared to be a bad-faith tactic. The matter requires clarification of calculations and a clear record for review.

WCABGolden State VintnersState Compensation Insurance FundJerry Williamsmaintenance mechanicwinery workerforemancumulative traumabilateral kneeshearing loss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1997

Mark v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, an order which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found no improvident exercise of discretion in the denial. The petitioners failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for their almost six-month delay beyond the 90-day statutorily-prescribed period. Additionally, the petitioners did not provide the respondents with actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within the required timeframe. The court noted that the conditions at the accident scene changed to the prejudice of the respondents, preventing their own investigation, and the ladder involved was allegedly discarded immediately after the incident. Filing a Workers’ Compensation claim was also deemed insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of General Municipal Law § 50-e.

late notice of claimjudicial discretionactual noticeprejudice to respondentchanged conditionsWorkers’ Compensation claimappellate reviewstatutory periodKings Countymunicipal liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. M2003-00291-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2003

Eleonora Kogan. v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry

This case from the Tennessee Court of Appeals addresses the required notice for contested administrative hearings. The court determined that Tennessee Compilation of Administrative Rules and Regulations 1360-4-1-.06 mandates specific service methods, including personal service or return receipt mail, for notice of a rescheduled hearing. The Tennessee Board of Dentistry's use of regular mail to inform Eleonora Kogan of a new hearing date was found insufficient. Consequently, the Board's decision against Dr. Kogan was vacated, and the case was remanded for proper proceedings, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory notice requirements.

Administrative LawNotice of HearingService of ProcessDue ProcessState Administrative AgencyContested CaseTennessee Administrative RulesDental Practice ActLicense RevocationRemand
References
26
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,714 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