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. M2011-02746-COA-R3-CV / 1018991
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce

This case involves a dispute between Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. (insured) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer) regarding the proper classification of employees for workers' compensation insurance premiums. Advantage disputed Liberty's reclassification of its employees from 'manufacture of small tools' (3113) to 'machine shop' (3632), and later to 'construction or agricultural machinery mfg.' (3507) for employees working at TAG Manufacturing Company. Advantage contended the correct classification was 'boilermaking' (3620). The Department of Commerce and Insurance ruled in favor of the insurer (Liberty), classifying the work as 3507, which was affirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, finding substantial and material evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClassificationEmployee ClassificationPremium AuditAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationCode Classification
References
7
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piesco v. New York, Department of Personnel

Dr. Judith Piesco sued the City of New York's Department of Personnel, Commissioner Juan Ortiz, and Assistant Commissioner Nicholas La Porte, Jr., alleging retaliation after she testified before a New York State Senate commission regarding deficiencies in a Police Department entrance examination. Her claims included prima facie tort, intentional infliction of mental distress, and a First Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Piesco moved to amend her complaint to add Mayor Edward I. Koch as a defendant and a cause of action for wrongful discharge, which was granted. She also sought to strike the defendants' affirmative defense of failure to file a notice of claim under New York General Municipal Law section 50-i, but this motion was denied, with the court finding state law applicable to the pendent state claims.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentFree SpeechWrongful DischargeMunicipal LawNotice of ClaimFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureErie DoctrinePendent JurisdictionMotion to Amend
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 06-13-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

the Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department v. Glenda Spoon

The Fannin County Community Supervision and Corrections Department appeals the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a whistleblower action filed by its former employee, Glenda Spoon. Spoon alleged she was terminated for reporting various violations of law, including illegal campaigning and embezzlement, to the District Attorney. The Department claims Spoon's reports were not made in good faith and that she was terminated for failing to follow orders regarding a client's SAFPF admission and the chain of command. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea, finding Spoon raised sufficient fact issues regarding her good-faith belief of reported violations and a causal link between her report and termination. The court identified a Fannin County Personnel Policy Manual section as a 'law' implicated by Spoon's report.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationSovereign Immunity WaiverPlea to the JurisdictionFannin CountyCommunity Supervision and Corrections DepartmentIllegal CampaigningEmbezzlement AllegationsTexas Government CodePersonnel Policy Violation
References
41
Case No. 03-00-00398-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2001

Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County, Texas v. Zarina Carlisle

Zarina Carlisle, a senior correctional officer, sued Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation for reporting unprofessional conduct by her supervisor, Captain Wendell Gilmore. Carlisle reported Gilmore's cursing and 'bad-mouthing' to Sheriff Joe Pollack, believing it violated county personnel policies and constituted disorderly conduct under the Texas Penal Code. Burnet County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Carlisle failed to allege a 'violation of law' sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed, finding that internal personnel policies do not constitute a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act unless promulgated pursuant to a statute or ordinance, which was not established. Furthermore, Carlisle's allegations did not meet the elements for disorderly conduct. The court concluded that Carlisle failed to plead a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, reversing the district court's denial of Burnet County's plea to the jurisdiction.

Wrongful TerminationWhistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeViolation of LawPersonnel PolicyDisorderly ConductTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of Authority
References
43
Case No. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 5,865 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