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. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. 2019-04-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2020

West, Amber v. The Balanced Canine Training Academy

Amber West, an employee of The Balanced Canine Training Academy (BCTA), sought workers' compensation benefits for a low-back injury sustained when two large dogs knocked her over a doghouse at work. She also requested psychiatric care and additional temporary disability benefits, alleging an inaccurate average weekly wage calculation. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Cookeville, presided over by Judge Robert Durham, held an expedited hearing. The Court found Ms. West likely to prove her low-back injury primarily arose out of and in the course of her employment, supported by medical evidence from neurosurgeon Joseph Jestus. However, her requests for psychiatric care were denied due to the lack of an order from an authorized physician. Furthermore, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary disability benefits, determining her average weekly wage based on the employer's account and documented evidence, which was lower than Ms. West claimed but still within the minimum compensation rate she had already received.

Workers' CompensationLow-Back InjurySciaticaPsychiatric CareAverage Weekly Wage DisputeExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsDog AttackMedical TreatmentCausation
References
0
Case No. 2017-913 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal initiated by Oriental Health Acupuncture, P.C., acting as the assignee of Carrington, Earnel, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. The appeal originated from an order by the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court's decision was predicated on the finding that the amounts claimed by the plaintiff exceeded the limits established by the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's order. This decision was made in conjunction with a related case, BQE Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., decided concurrently.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAutomobile insuranceFirst-party benefitsMedical provider claimAssigned benefitsCivil Court appealAppellate Term decision
References
1
Case No. 3-15-00262-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2015

Texas Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine v. Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners And Patricia Gilbert, Executive Director in Her Official Capacity

This is an Administrative Procedures Act challenge to the validity of Chiropractic Board rules that authorize chiropractors to engage in the unlicensed practice of acupuncture. The Association sought to invalidate these rules and alternatively sought a declaration that the statutory scheme allowing chiropractors to practice acupuncture is unconstitutional. The trial court granted the Chiropractic Board’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Association’s competing motion. The Association argues that the Chiropractic Board exceeded its statutory authority, and its interpretation of the Acupuncture Chapter is unreasonable and creates public health risks due to inadequate training. Alternatively, the statutory scheme violates the Texas Constitution by favoring one school of medicine and containing more than one subject. The Association also argues that the statute of limitations defense fails.

Administrative LawScope of PracticeChiropractic RegulationAcupuncture RegulationStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersDelegation of AuthorityPublic Health and SafetyProfessional Licensing
References
97
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 1989

Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co. v. Rosseel, N.V.

In this action, defendant Rosseel, N.V. ("Rosseel") moved to compel the depositions of plaintiffs Oriental Commercial & Shipping Co., Ltd. ("Oriental U.K."), Oriental Commercial Shipping Co., Ltd. ("Oriental S.A."), and Abdul Hamid Bokhari ("Bokhari"). Rosseel sought to discover the location of the plaintiffs' assets outside Saudi Arabia, asserting this information was necessary to ensure the enforceability of any potential arbitration award, given concerns about asset transfers and difficulties enforcing awards in Saudi Arabia. The court denied Rosseel's motion, ruling that discovery "in aid of arbitration" is only permitted under "extraordinary circumstances" related to the subject matter of the arbitration itself. The court found that Rosseel's request was for convenience rather than necessity, as the information sought was not intended for presentation to the arbitrators but rather to assess the desirability of continuing arbitration. Consequently, finding no extraordinary circumstances and no remaining claims to be resolved, the court dismissed the action.

ArbitrationDiscoveryFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAsset DiscoveryEnforcement of AwardsExtraordinary CircumstancesInternational ArbitrationFraud FindingMotion PracticeDismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonsalez Moreno v. Milk Train, Inc.

Migrant farmworkers Jose Gonsalez Moreno and Jacinto Ortega, residents of Texas, sued New York-based Milk Train, Inc. and Texas-based AG-Labor Services for violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act and state contract and tort laws. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, or to transfer the case to New York. The District Court for the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Briones, denied all motions, concluding that Milk Train had sufficient minimum contacts with Texas due to its recruitment activities in the state and that the forum selection clause was unenforceable under AWPA.

Personal JurisdictionImproper VenueTransfer VenueMigrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection ActAWPA ViolationsEmployment LawContract DisputeFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationRetaliatory Discharge
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. County of Erie

This appellate case concerns the standing of petitioners, Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo and Vicinity and Operating Engineers Local 17 Training Fund, to challenge a public works contract awarded by Erie County to Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. Petitioners argued the contract was invalid due to Greenauer's non-compliance with a local law requiring a certified worker training program. The Supreme Court's decision granting the petition was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court concluding that petitioners lacked standing. The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate an actual injury in fact distinct from the general public, deeming their alleged harm speculative and insufficient for associational or organizational standing. A dissenting opinion argued that petitioners did have standing, emphasizing the local law's intent to promote apprenticeship programs and the direct impact of the county's non-compliance on petitioners' ability to participate.

StandingPublic ContractsLocal LawWorker Training ProgramApprenticeshipErie CountyCPLR Article 78PreemptionERISAInjury in Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 526 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