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

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shoga v. Fischer

The petitioner, a prisoner, faced disciplinary charges for refusing a direct order and harassment after making inappropriate comments to a social worker about her personal appearance and marital status, despite being told to stop. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty of these charges, and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. The court confirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the guilt. The court also rejected the petitioner's claims regarding improperly denied witnesses and alleged hearing officer bias.

Prison DisciplinaryHarassmentRefusing Direct OrderSubstantial EvidenceWitness DenialHearing Officer BiasAdministrative AppealCPLR Article 78 ProceedingPrisoner RightsCorrectional Facility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2007

Kha'Sun Creator Allah v. Leclaire

The petitioner appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Franklin County, which dismissed his CPLR article 78 application. This proceeding challenged a prison disciplinary determination where the petitioner was found guilty of refusing orders, making threats, damaging state property, and obstructing cell visibility. Petitioner argued he was improperly denied a social worker's testimony regarding his mental health. However, a Hearing Officer had already conducted a confidential interview with an Office of Mental Health psychologist, deeming the requested testimony redundant. Ultimately, the judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.

prison disciplinary rulesCPLR article 78witness denialmental health statushearing officerprocedural challengesredundancyappealSupreme CourtFranklin County
References
2
Case No. ADJ6853853
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KYB FUGFUGOSH vs. SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a finding that San Quentin State Prison committed serious and willful misconduct. The applicant, an inmate kitchen worker, sustained a right shoulder injury on June 18, 2008, after being ordered to work despite presenting medical documentation of his injury and post-surgical condition. The Board upheld the Administrative Law Judge's finding that prison officials' failure to acknowledge and act on the applicant's medical limitations constituted a reckless disregard for his safety, proximately causing his injury. The employer's arguments regarding perjured testimony and newly discovered evidence were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Quentin State PrisonState Compensation Insurance Fundserious and willful misconductadmitted injurykitchen workerarthroscopic acromioplastyrotator cuff tearsfailure to reportinmate request for interview
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Case No. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bilbrew v. Goord

Petitioner, an inmate, challenged a prison disciplinary ruling after being found guilty of assaulting staff, violent conduct, unauthorized property possession, and harassment. The charges stemmed from an incident where petitioner swung a food cart at a cook. Petitioner argued the disciplinary hearing was untimely and that he was improperly denied the right to call certain witnesses. The court found that the time limits for disciplinary hearings are directory, not mandatory, and that petitioner demonstrated no prejudice from the delay. Additionally, the court determined that the Hearing Officer's denial of certain witnesses was proper as petitioner could not identify them or show their relevance. The court also upheld the interpretation of facility regulations regarding personal items in the kitchen area. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Prison disciplineinmate misconductCPLR article 78administrative reviewprocedural due processhearing timelinesswitness rightsfacility regulationsassault on staffharassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenneth L. Storey v. Randall E. Nichols

This case addresses the appropriate appellate jurisdiction for attorney-disciplinary proceedings initiated under specific Tennessee Code Annotated sections. Kenneth L. Storey filed a petition alleging misconduct against several State's attorneys, which was dismissed by a trial court. Upon appeal, the intermediate appellate court transferred the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, referencing prior judicial constructions in Memphis & Shelby County Bar Ass’n v. Himmelstein, clarified that appeals as of right in statutory disciplinary proceedings lie in the Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the transfer order and sent the case to the Court of Appeals for a review on its merits.

Attorney DisciplineAppellate JurisdictionTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationCourt of AppealsSupreme CourtProsecutorial MisconductRule 9Tenn. Code Ann. § 23-3-201Pro Se Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goncalves v. Goord

An inmate, referred to as petitioner, was found guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules for making threats and engaging in conduct involving the threat of violence. The charges stemmed from a letter sent to the Attica Correctional Facility Superintendent, Victor T. Herbert, detailing plans to assassinate officers and Herbert himself. During the disciplinary hearing, the petitioner admitted to writing the letter, stating it was an expression of frustration and a desire for transfer. The court, citing substantial evidence including the misbehavior report, the letter, and testimony from a correction officer, a social worker (who found the petitioner not psychotic), and the petitioner, confirmed the determination. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the determination was upheld.

Prison disciplinary rulesthreats of violenceinmate misconductAttica Correctional Facilitymisbehavior reportCPLR article 78 proceedingsubstantial evidence reviewmental health evaluationcorrectional servicessuperintendent threat
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins v. Tennessee Department of Correction

Barton Hawkins, a state inmate, challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding through a *pro se* petition for writ of certiorari. He alleged due process violations after being found guilty of refusing a drug screen due to 'shy bladder syndrome' and subsequent retaliatory monthly tests. The trial court dismissed the suit *sua sponte* for improper venue, citing a Tennessee statute that localizes inmate actions to the prison's county. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for improper venue, ruling that the specific inmate venue statute prevails over general venue rules. The case was remanded for transfer to the appropriate trial court in Lauderdale County, where the West Tennessee State Penitentiary is located.

Inmate LitigationVenue DisputePrison Disciplinary ProceedingWrit of CertiorariSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationTennessee Appellate LawAdministrative ReviewDue ProcessImproper Venue
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 582 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