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. 07-14-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2014

City of Plainview Texas, William Mull, in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department, and Ken Coughlin, Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Plainview Police Department v. Korey Ferguson

Korey Ferguson, a police officer for the City of Plainview, Texas, was terminated after an alleged incident of excessive force involving citizen Amber Washington. Ferguson contended that the City violated Texas Government Code Sections 614.023(a) and (b) by failing to provide him with a copy of Washington's signed complaint before taking disciplinary action. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Ferguson, ordering his reinstatement with back pay, based on the belief that noncompliance with the statute mandated this remedy. The City of Plainview is appealing this decision, arguing that reinstatement is not a mandatory remedy for the statutory violation, that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support Ferguson's reinstatement given his unfitness as an officer, and that the order to reinstate him is against public policy.

Police MisconductExcessive ForceReinstatementDue ProcessStatutory ComplianceTexas Government CodeCivil ServiceAdministrative LawPublic PolicyAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 03-96-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1997

Milton O'Bryant Leonard Hendon, Jr. Jimmie Cross Joe Ortiz And Marvin Rasco v. City of Midland Richard L. Czech, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police, City of Midland Police Department And J. W. Marugg, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Lieutenant, City of Midland Police Department

Several police officers sued their employer, the City of Midland, and supervisors for alleged unlawful employment practices, including retaliation due to their disabilities and prior lawsuits. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding claims of tortious interference, intentional infliction of economic injury, and requests for back pay for constitutional violations. However, it reversed and remanded the judgment concerning official and derivative sovereign immunity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reinstatement for constitutional violations, and breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding genuine issues of material fact. The court also vacated and dismissed the Texas Labor Code claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Official ImmunitySovereign ImmunityEmployment LawRetaliation ClaimsDisability DiscriminationSummary Judgment ReversalTexas Constitutional RightsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTortious Interference with Contract
References
32
Case No. 03-11-00594-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Michael Hamilton v. Mark Washington, in His Capacity as City of Austin Civil Service Director Art Acevedo, in His Capacity as City of Austin Chief of Police The City of Austin, Gary Cobb and Stephen Edmonds, in Their Capacity as Members of Austin Firefighters

Michael Hamilton, an Austin Police Department officer, was indefinitely suspended and sought an appeal with the Austin Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission. His appeal was rejected as deficient for failing to include specific statutory language. Hamilton then sued various City of Austin officials and the City, seeking declaratory relief, a writ of mandamus, and to set aside the Commission's decision, along with a breach of contract claim. The district court granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, ruling that the district court had jurisdiction over constitutional and ultra vires claims against the officials but lacked jurisdiction for reinstatement, back pay, lost benefits, and the breach of contract claim due to unexhausted administrative remedies.

Governmental ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActMandamusUltra ViresCivil Service ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesCollective Bargaining AgreementStandingConstitutional Law
References
50
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2012

Claim of Cook v. East Greenbush Police Department

The claimant, a patrol officer for the East Greenbush Police Department, filed for workers' compensation benefits after being diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following a traumatic incident in January 2009 involving an armed suspect. His claim was denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, who found that the events giving rise to his injury were part of his job responsibilities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for a mental injury from work-related stress to be compensable, the stress must exceed that normally encountered in the work environment. The court concluded that while the specific encounter was "extraordinary," the possibility of needing deadly force is an inherent part of a police officer's regular duties, regardless of department size. Therefore, the Board's decision to deny benefits was upheld.

Posttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental InjuryWork-Related StressPolice OfficerAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsScope of EmploymentNormal Work EnvironmentDeadly Force
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09072
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Matter of Tomaine (City of Poughkeepsie Police)

David Tomaine, a police officer, sustained a lower back injury in 2012, leading to surgery and his inability to return to work. He subsequently accepted a performance of duty disability retirement. The central dispute was whether his retirement was causally related to his injury and if he was entitled to workers' compensation benefits after March 2015. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, determining that Tomaine's retirement was causally related, he had not voluntarily withdrawn, and he was temporarily totally disabled, thus entitled to lost wage awards from March 2015 to July 2017. The employer, City of Poughkeepsie Police, appealed this decision, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawDisability RetirementCausationLabor Market WithdrawalTotal DisabilityAppellate DivisionSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical TestimonyPolice InjuryBack Injury
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00553 [191 AD3d 659]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

McNulty v. Port Wash. Police Dist.

This case involves Michael McNulty, a police officer for the Port Washington Police District (PWPD), who was injured in a collision with a PWPD vehicle operated by his coemployee, Nicholas Cangemi. McNulty and his wife filed an action against PWPD and Cangemi, alleging negligence and a violation of General Municipal Law § 205-e. The Supreme Court granted PWPD's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. It also granted Cangemi's motion for summary judgment, finding both were coemployees acting within the scope of employment, making workers' compensation the sole remedy. The Appellate Division affirmed both decisions, upholding the application of the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryPolice OfficerCoemployeeWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewScope of EmploymentGovernmental Immunity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Southampton v. Village of Southampton Police Benevolent Ass'n

The Village of Southampton initiated a petition to permanently stay an arbitration sought by the Village of Southampton Police Benevolent Association (PBA). The PBA had demanded arbitration concerning benefits for former police sergeant Christopher A. Broich, who was terminated in 2007 for misconduct, a decision upheld by the Appellate Division. Broich's claims for benefits arose after he was granted World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits, prompting the PBA to argue for the reinstatement of various village benefits under their collective bargaining agreement. The Village contended that Broich, as a terminated employee, was ineligible for such benefits and that prior court judgments affirming his termination had res judicata effect. The court sided with the Village, granting the petition to permanently stay arbitration and denying the PBA's cross-motion, concluding that Broich's status as a terminated employee meant he could not invoke the CBA's grievance procedure and that res judicata applied.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Employment Relations BoardRes JudicataTermination of EmploymentEmployee BenefitsDisability RetirementWorkers' CompensationMisconduct
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1971

Claim of Juna v. New York State Police

Richard T. Juna, a New York State Police trooper, was killed in an automobile accident while returning to his duty station after a two-day leave. His employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which had found that Juna was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident. The court considered that Juna was subject to 24-hour call, prohibited from outside employment prior to duty, and required to act in police matters even on leave. The accident occurred within his normal work area while he was fulfilling the requirement to be available at his station. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence that Juna was under the control and for the benefit of his employer, thus acting within the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentTravel to WorkPolice OfficerOff-Duty RegulationsEmployer ControlAccidental DeathAppellate ReviewCourse of EmploymentTwenty-Four Hour Call
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,618 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