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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Magnavox Co.

The plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor, initiated a proceeding against The Magnavox Company of Tennessee, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by paying unequal wages based on sex for jobs requiring equal work. The specific jobs compared were "assembler second class" (predominantly female) and "assembler first class" (predominantly male), and "janitress-matron" (female) and "janitor" (male). The court, after considering objections to a magistrate's findings, concluded that while the mental effort was comparable, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the physical effort required for the lower-paid jobs was equal to that of the higher-paid jobs. The court acknowledged historical practices of assigning "heavier" jobs to men and "lighter" jobs to women but found that Magnavox's classifications were based on actual differences in physical effort. Consequently, the court denied all relief to the Secretary of Labor.

Equal Pay ActWage DiscriminationSex DiscriminationLabor GradesJob ClassificationCollective BargainingPhysical EffortSkill ComparisonFair Labor Standards ActAssemblers
References
5
Case No. 13-04-310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2005

Opel Wiltshire v. Humpal Physical Therapy, P. C.

Opel Wiltshire was terminated from Humpal Physical Therapy, P.C. for violating a nail polish policy and making a phone call to the owner. She subsequently filed claims for race discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Humpal on all claims and awarded attorney's fees to Humpal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on Wiltshire's claims due to lack of evidence for prima facie cases. However, the appellate court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Humpal, finding the trial court abused its discretion given its implicit finding that Wiltshire's claims were not groundless.

Reverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentAttorney FeesRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationEmotional DistressEmployment LawTCHRATexas Court of Appeals
References
41
Case No. 2015-2337 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2018

Sama Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Hereford Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Sama Physical Therapy, P.C., as assignee, to recover first-party no-fault benefits from Hereford Insurance Co. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's assignor had been injured during the course of employment. The Civil Court conditionally granted defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, ordering the plaintiff to file an application with the Workers' Compensation Board within 90 days. Plaintiff failed to comply with this order, and upon renewal, the Civil Court adhered to its prior determination. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order, finding that the plaintiff did not demonstrate compliance with the order to make a proper application under the Workers' Compensation Law.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewConditional GrantFailure to ComplyRenewal MotionInsurance LawAssigneeMedical Provider
References
1
Case No. 2015-608 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

In this case, Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C., acting as an assignee, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The original order had granted 21st Century Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing parts of a complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits for services billed under specific CPT codes (97010, 97110, and 97124). The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that 21st Century Insurance Company failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor to calculate the reimbursement rate, thus not establishing its defense that the charged fees exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. As a result, the branches of the defendant's motion for summary judgment related to those CPT codes were denied.

No-Fault BenefitsCPT CodesSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleReimbursement RateAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeCivil ProcedureConversion FactorMedical Billing
References
2
Case No. 2016-198 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns a provider, Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C., seeking no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint based on the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and claims exceeding the fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term modified this order, finding that Allstate failed to provide sufficient proof of timely denial form mailing, thereby precluding its defenses regarding IMEs and the fee schedule. Consequently, Allstate's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, reversing that part of the lower court's decision. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, as the plaintiff also failed to establish their claims.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentindependent medical examinationstimely denialinsurance defenseappellate reviewmedical billingassignee rightsprocedural requirementsfee schedule
References
5
Case No. 46885/05, 47943/05, 47945/05
Regular Panel Decision

Robert Physical Therapy, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This case involves three consolidated claims for first-party no-fault benefits related to physical therapy services. The plaintiff's assignors received physical therapy, and the defendant, an insurer, denied some claims due to disputes over billing codes. The central legal issues concerned whether a physical therapist could utilize billing codes from the medicine fee schedule when such services were not explicitly in the physical medicine schedule, and if range of motion and muscle testing could be billed separately from evaluation and management on the same day. The court determined that physical therapists are not confined to the physical medicine section and can use codes from any section of the medical fee schedule. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its denials regarding separate billing for range of motion and muscle testing. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding judgment for all disputed amounts.

Physical Therapy BillingNo-Fault BenefitsMedical Fee ScheduleCPT CodesWorkers' Compensation RegulationsEvaluation and Management ServicesRange of Motion TestingMuscle TestingProvider SpecialtyBilling Disputes
References
4
Case No. 13-08-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Mitch Burkhart and Christine Burkhart v. Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc. and Concentra Integrated Services, and rgv/nueces Rehabilitation D/B/A Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy

Mitch Burkhart sustained a foot and ankle injury while training for his employer, Verizon Communications. Verizon's workers' compensation claims were administered by Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc., who, along with Concentra Integrated Services, arranged a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) for Burkhart with RGV/Nueces Rehabilitation d/b/a Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy. The Burkharts alleged that the FCE aggravated Mitch's injury, causing permanent damage. They sued Sedgwick, Concentra, and Innovative, claiming negligence, civil conspiracy, assault, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed the case against Innovative for an inadequate expert report and granted summary judgment to Sedgwick and Concentra, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mitch's aggravation injury was an 'extension injury' covered by the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA.

Workers' CompensationFunctional Capacity EvaluationExclusive RemedyAggravation InjurySummary JudgmentMedical Expert ReportHealth Care LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duhon v. Bone & Joint Physical Therapy Clinics

Beatrice Duhon, a physical therapy technician, appealed a summary judgment granted to her employer, Bone & Joint Physical Therapy Clinics, in a suit alleging retaliatory termination in violation of the Texas anti-retaliation statute. Duhon reported an on-the-job injury and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim after her termination. The Clinic argued she was terminated to hire a licensed physical therapist. The appellate court held that informing the employer of an injury sufficiently invokes statutory protection and found Duhon presented sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to create a fact issue regarding the causal link between her reported injury and termination. Therefore, the summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAnti-Retaliation StatuteSummary JudgmentCausal LinkTexas Labor CodeOn-the-job InjuryEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewRemand
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S.H.

The Onondaga County Department of Social Services filed a motion requesting that reasonable efforts to reunite a child, born in August 2002 and removed from home in February 2003, with his parents were not required. The father had been convicted of a sex offense against a half-sibling, and his parental rights to another half-sibling were terminated. Both parents were found to have neglected, severely abused, and repeatedly abused the subject child. The mother admitted knowing about the sexual abuse but failed to intervene. The court found that the Department met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the parents subjected the child to aggravating circumstances and failed to demonstrate that reunification was in the child's best interests. Consequently, the motion to dispense with reunification efforts was granted.

Child NeglectSevere AbuseRepeated AbuseParental Rights TerminationSexual OffenseAggravated CircumstancesFamily Court ActSocial Services LawReunification EffortsFoster Care
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 1991

Pellach v. Pellach

The Supreme Court modified an earlier order denying plaintiff's motion to reopen a maintenance and support hearing and compel defendant's physical examination. The record before the Special Referee was reopened, allowing the plaintiff to subpoena defendant's bank account records due to alleged discovery of new information and previous attorney refusal. However, the court affirmed the denial of the physical examination request, noting the defendant's prior adjudication of permanent disability by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The delay in the divorce action, pending since 1988, was largely attributed to the defendant's frequent changes of attorneys.

DivorceMaintenanceSupportFinancial DisclosureBank AccountsPhysical ExaminationWorkers' CompensationJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewReopening Record
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,692 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