Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Louis Slesin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the regulation of nonionizing radiation. OSHA released some documents but withheld portions of others, citing Exemption 5 of FOIA. Slesin cross-moved for an in camera inspection of the redactions and for summary judgment. District Judge Leval denied Slesin's cross-motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the redacted materials, which included staff opinions, recommendations, and internal timetables related to OSHA's deliberative process for developing new health standards, were properly withheld under Exemption 5, which protects internal agency communications reflecting deliberative or policy-making processes. The judge concluded that OSHA had adequately demonstrated that the excised material fell within the lawful exemption.

FOIAExemption 5Deliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationNonionizing RadiationRegulatory StandardsAgency DeliberationsInformation DisclosureGovernment Transparency

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This appeal addresses whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's Extra-Hazardous Employer Program is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). The Ben Robinson Company was designated extra-hazardous following a fatal workplace accident, leading to mandated safety inspections and an accident prevention plan. The Commission's arguments for dismissing the case, including mootness and the exclusivity of the Administrative Procedure Act, were rejected. The court concluded that the Program, as currently administered, is preempted by the OSH Act where it regulates workplace safety issues already covered by federal standards. The decision reverses the trial court's summary judgment and remands the case for a determination of costs and attorney's fees.

Occupational Safety and Health ActOSH Act PreemptionExtra-Hazardous Employer ProgramTexas Workers’ Compensation CommissionWorkplace SafetyState RegulationFederal PreemptionMootness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees

References

Case No. 15-24-00114-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fowinkle v. Southern Railway Co.

This case addresses whether railroad employees fall under the coverage of the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1972 (OSHA). The appellants, the Commissioners of Public Health and Labor, attempted to inspect Southern Railway's Chattanooga Diesel Shop following a complaint, but were denied entry by the manager, who cited an exemption under state law. This prompted a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief. The Chancellor ruled that railroad employees were not covered by OSHA, a decision upheld by the higher court. The court's reasoning was based on a state statute that exempts railroad employees whose safety and health are 'subject to protection' under federal acts, irrespective of whether specific federal regulations have been promulgated, acknowledging the legislature's intent to avoid redundant state oversight where federal law has a preemptive scope in railroad safety.

OSHARailroad SafetyState LawFederal LawPreemptionStatutory InterpretationExemptionOccupational HealthSafety RegulationsTennessee Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Department of Labor

This case involves an appeal by Terminix International Company, L.P. and TruGreen, Inc., L.P. challenging the jurisdiction of the Tennessee Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (TOSHA) to conduct safety inspections and enforce regulations concerning pesticide applicators. The appellants argued that federal laws, specifically the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act (FOSH), preempted TOSHA's authority. Both the Chancery Court of Davidson County and this appellate court affirmed the decision that TOSHA has jurisdiction. The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to fully occupy the field of pesticide regulation, particularly regarding their use in the workplace, and that states are permitted to regulate pesticide use. Therefore, TOSHA retains its obligation and authority to protect the health and safety of workers from risks associated with pesticide use in the workplace.

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 28, 2008

New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health v. Bloomberg

Petitioner NYCOSH requested workers' compensation records from the New York City Mayor's office and Law Department via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, seeking raw data on workplace injuries as mandated by Administrative Code § 12-127. Both agencies denied the request, providing only an annual report and claiming the raw data was not maintained in a single responsive record and would be burdensome to produce. NYCOSH initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the Supreme Court applied an incorrect standard of review. It further found the City's claim of statutory exemption under Workers' Compensation Law § 110-a invalid but noted the personal privacy exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b), requiring redaction. The court ordered a hearing to determine if retrieving electronic records constituted 'simple manipulation' or new record creation, and if producing hard copies would impose an undue burden, thereby reinstating the petition in part.

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)Public RecordsWorkers' Compensation RecordsData PrivacyUndue BurdenElectronic Records DisclosureGovernment TransparencyCPLR Article 78 ProceedingNew York Appellate DivisionAgency Records

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

Seton Health Plan, Inc., a licensed health maintenance organization (HMO), failed to file its annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports for 1999 and 2000 with the Texas Health Care Information Council, leading to a dispute over civil penalties. The State, through the Attorney General, initially demanded $153,000, interpreting 'each act of violation' as each day of non-compliance, while Seton contended the maximum penalty was $10,000 per unfiled report. Seton filed a declaratory judgment action to construe the statute, and the district court sided with Seton, assessing a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each report. The State appealed, raising issues of mootness, sovereign immunity, the penalty amount, denial of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the penalty, the assessed penalties, and the denial of injunctive relief, but remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionCivil PenaltiesSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesHEDIS ReportHealth Maintenance OrganizationTexas Health and Safety CodeAdministrative Procedure Act

References

Case No. 03-04-00073-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 03, 2005

Skilled Craftsman of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director

The case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which identifies private employers with high injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc., designated as hazardous, argued that the program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety standards already covered by federal law, leading to duplicative regulation. The district court initially upheld the state program, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the Texas program's practical effect is to coerce employers into changing behavior, thus conflicting with Congress's intent to avoid subjecting workers and employers to duplicative regulation. Consequently, the court held that the Hazardous Employer Program, as it applies to private employers, is preempted by the OSH Act.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkers' CompensationState LawFederal LawOccupational SafetyHealth StandardsDuplicative RegulationTexas Court of Appeals

References

Case No. 03-02-00114-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,346 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ben Robinson Co. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

References

Case No. 15-24-00114-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fowinkle v. Southern Railway Co.

OSHARailroad SafetyState LawFederal LawPreemptionStatutory InterpretationExemptionOccupational HealthSafety RegulationsTennessee Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Terminix International Co. v. Tennessee Department of Labor

Pesticide SafetyWorkplace SafetyFederal PreemptionState Regulatory AuthorityOccupational HealthPersonal Protective EquipmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewFIFRAFOSH Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 28, 2008

New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health v. Bloomberg

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

References

Case No. 03-04-00073-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 03, 2005

Skilled Craftsman of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkers' CompensationState LawFederal LawOccupational SafetyHealth StandardsDuplicative RegulationTexas Court of Appeals

References

Case No. 03-02-00114-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

References

Showing 1-10 of 10,346 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.