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. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. 04-15-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

This is an opening brief from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. (Post Oak), appealing the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction by the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County. The case concerns the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's (the District) suit seeking a declaration that Post Oak's proposed landfill violates District Rule 8.1, even though Post Oak's permit application is still under review by the TCEQ. Appellants argue that the District's claim is not ripe, is impermissibly redundant of judicial review remedies, and that the District lacks standing due to a non-redressable injury. They contend that the TCEQ has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over landfill permitting and that District rules cannot supersede a TCEQ permit. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of the District's suit.

Environmental LawLandfill PermittingGroundwater ConservationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineStanding (Law)Exclusive JurisdictionPrimary Jurisdiction
References
195
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Budge v. Post

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant Troy V. Post’s motion for relief from a January 17, 1980 judgment, which awarded Plaintiff Donald Budge $455,041 for breach of contract. Post sought relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6), alleging newly discovered evidence that Budge had received funds from a Mexican bankruptcy settlement, which violated an assignment agreement within their 1978 contract. The Court found Post entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5), characterizing Budge’s receipt of funds as a setoff. The judgment was amended, reducing Budge's award by $26,080.73 to reflect the funds received.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)Motion for Relief from JudgmentBreach of ContractContractual AssignmentNewly Discovered EvidenceAccord and SatisfactionSetoffAmended JudgmentFederal Court PracticeCivil Procedure
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Underwood v. Zurich Insurance Co.

Cas Underwood, an employee of BASF Corporation, sustained work-connected injuries from an explosion. He received a lump-sum disability award, which was later paid by Zurich Insurance Company. Subsequently, Underwood was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and petitioned to reopen the final judgment, seeking additional disability benefits. The trial court dismissed his petition to reopen, citing a Tennessee statute on the finality of lump-sum payments, but granted his motion for future medical expenses related to PTSD. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that an increase in disability after a lump-sum award does not constitute grounds for relief under Tenn.R.Civ.P. 60.02(5) and that timely notice was given for medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationPost-traumatic Stress DisorderLump-sum SettlementFinality of JudgmentRule 60.02Increased DisabilityMedical ExpensesNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ornstein v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case addresses the viability of claims for emotional and psychological injury, specifically AIDS phobia and post-traumatic stress disorder, following an HIV exposure. The plaintiff, a nurse, was accidentally pricked by a contaminated needle and subsequently developed severe emotional distress. The Supreme Court had allowed her claims for post-traumatic stress disorder to extend beyond the established six-month limitation for AIDS phobia. However, this appellate court reversed that decision, ruling that all related emotional damages must adhere to the six-month period, based on the scientific consensus regarding the likelihood of HIV infection detection.

AIDS PhobiaHIV ExposureEmotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSix-Month Limitation RuleMedical ConsensusObjective StandardNeedle Stick InjuryWorkers' Compensation Psychiatrist
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Sanchez v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiffs’ motion to vacate a settlement pertaining to an infant plaintiff's emotional injuries. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial. Plaintiffs, including the infant's guardian, claimed they only discovered the true extent of the infant's emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress syndrome, in the summer of 2005 following an examination by a social worker. However, the court found that these psychological injuries were known from the case's inception in 2001 and were appropriately considered when the settlement was agreed upon in December 2004. Evidence, including a 2001 psychiatric evaluation, confirmed the infant's diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the settlement agreement.

Settlement DisputeInfant's RightsPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderVacating SettlementCompromise OrderPsychological HarmSearch Warrant ExecutionAppellate AffirmationParental GuardianJudicial Discretion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Contreras

Heriberto Contreras, a maintenance mechanic, was injured in a gas explosion at Sea Lion Chemical Company and suffered burns. After the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission made an award, Contreras sought judicial review in district court, claiming compensation for physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. A jury found him totally incapacitated and awarded him a lump sum and future medical benefits. Employers Insurance of Wausau appealed, arguing the trial court wrongly struck its amended answer, which sought to add defenses related to Contreras's failure to notify and file a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder within the statutory timeframes. The appellate court, interpreting Rule 93 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that Wausau’s amended answer was timely filed. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, holding that the error in striking the amended answer likely caused an improper judgment.

Workers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAmended PleadingsTimeliness of FilingTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 93Statutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReversalRemand
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,623 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