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. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC d/b/a Medical Center of Arlington (the Hospital). The case originated from the Hospital's alleged failure to disclose an employee's positive drug and alcohol test results to Shioleno after an on-the-job injury. Shioleno contended that this omission led to increased workers' compensation premiums and expenses in unemployment benefit disputes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Shioleno failed to provide a valid authorization for the disclosure of medical information. Consequently, the Hospital had no legal duty to disclose the results and could not be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, or Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations.

Summary JudgmentMedical RecordsDisclosure AuthorizationHealth & Safety CodeNegligenceBreach of ContractDTPADrug TestingAlcohol TestingEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31457(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2008

Parente v. 277 Park Avenue LLC

Plaintiff Dennis Párente, an operating engineer, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while investigating a malfunctioning booster fan in an office leased by defendant Chase. The original Supreme Court ruling denied Párente's partial summary judgment motion under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed the complaint. This Appellate Division order modified that decision, finding that Párente's activity constituted repair, not routine maintenance, thus making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable and imposing absolute liability. Consequently, Párente's motion for summary judgment on this claim was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. Other claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6), 200, and common-law negligence were properly dismissed, and triable issues of fact remain concerning a third-party indemnification action.

Ladder FallBooster Fan RepairLabor Law § 240(1)Absolute LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkplace SafetyWorker InjuryEmergency RepairThird-Party ActionIndemnification Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. C-179715
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Bullock

Relators filed an original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel Judge Larry Thorne of the 317th District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an adoption order for C.A.T.B. Previous litigation in Brazos County had seen Castro's parental rights terminated, then later reinstated via a bill of review, which consequently voided Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The relators contended that the orders granting the bill of review and setting aside the adoption were void due to statutory six-month limitations under the Texas Family Code. However, the appellate court denied the writ, ruling that these statutory requirements were not jurisdictional prerequisites and the defense was waived by not being timely asserted in the original bill of review hearing. Therefore, the respondent judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the reinstatement of the termination and adoption orders.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AdoptionWrit of MandamusJudicial DiscretionJurisdictional PrerequisitesStatutory InterpretationWaiver of DefenseBill of ReviewFamily Law TexasChild Reunification
References
17
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Employment Relations Board v. Christ the King Regional High School

The New York State Employment Relations Board initiated a proceeding to enforce its order against Christ the King Regional High School, which mandated good-faith bargaining with the Lay Faculty Association and reinstatement of teachers. The School challenged this order on First Amendment grounds, specifically citing the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, arguing for an absolute exemption from the New York State Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division ruled in favor of the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions, concluding that the Act, being a neutral and generally applicable regulatory measure, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the religious school in its labor relations with lay faculty. The court also upheld the reinstatement of teacher Gaglione, finding insufficient evidence of religious entanglement to preclude it.

First AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseLabor LawCollective BargainingReligious SchoolsLay Faculty RightsEmployment DisputesJudicial ReviewAdministrative Order Enforcement
References
19
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. M2022-01719-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

Parents' Choice Tennessee v. Jason Golden, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of Williamson County Schools

This appeal arose from a lawsuit brought by parents and an education-focused parents’ rights organization against the Williamson County Board of Education. They challenged the Board's Wit & Wisdom curriculum, asserting it violated Tennessee laws restricting Common Core instructional materials and prohibiting certain concepts in public schools. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the plaintiffs' lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for one claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims by a family who had left the school system and upheld the dismissal of the prohibited concepts claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's finding of lack of standing for other plaintiff families and the parents' rights organization, and it also reversed the dismissal of the Common Core claim, remanding that part of the case for further proceedings.

Education LawSchool CurriculumCommon Core StandardsProhibited ConceptsStanding LawAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefTennessee Court of Appeals
References
60
Case No. 12-15-00149-CV
Regular Panel Decision

in Re: Charles Dwayne Lankford and Roberta Gresham

This document is Stephanie Smith's response to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Charles Dwayne Lankford and Roberta Gresham in the Twelfth Court of Appeals, Tyler, Texas. The relators are challenging an order from Judge Joe Lee Register of Angelina County, which denied their pleas to the jurisdiction in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship concerning the child T.D.L. The core issue is whether Stephanie Smith has standing to file suit, based on Texas Family Code §102.003(a)(9), which grants standing to a person having actual care, control, and possession of a child for at least six months. Stephanie Smith argues that she has fulfilled the role of T.D.L.'s primary caretaker for over eight years due to the father's (Charles Lankford) extended absences and the managing conservator's (Roberta Gresham) relinquishment of responsibilities. The response advocates for a broad interpretation of 'actual care, control, and possession,' arguing it does not require exclusive or legal control, but rather a demonstrated de facto parental relationship and the development of a strong parent-child bond with T.D.L.

MandamusParent-Child RelationshipChild CustodyStandingTexas Family CodeActual Care Control PossessionParental RightsAppellate ProcedureFamily LawReal Party in Interest
References
61
Case No. 01-15-00877-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2016

in Re CVR Energy, Inc., CVR Partners, LP, CVR Refining, LP, Gary-Williams Energy Company, LLC

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus by CVR Energy, Inc., and its related entities (Relators) to compel a trial court to allow them to designate Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC, as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. Wynnewood was a former co-defendant and a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the relators, whom the plaintiffs had nonsuited less than 60 days before trial, after the statute of limitations had run. The trial court denied CVR's subsequent motion to designate Wynnewood. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that CVR had no obligation to disclose Wynnewood as a responsible third party while it was a co-defendant and that the motion to designate was timely filed after the nonsuit. Consequently, the Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order and allow the designation.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyProportionate ResponsibilityWrongful DeathNonsuitStatute of LimitationsTrial Court DiscretionTexas Civil ProcedureDiscovery ObligationsAppellate Remedy
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 8,438 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