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

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. 08-20-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Eduardo A. Jonson v. Long Duong and Remy Grousson

Eduardo A. Jonson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to file an out-of-time amended petition and the dismissal of his lawsuit against Long Duong and Remy Grousson. Jonson, a pro se litigant, raised three issues on appeal: denial of his rights as a pro se litigant, the trial judge's failure to recuse herself, and the judges' failure to adequately perform their duties. The Court of Appeals found Jonson waived his first and third issues due to inadequate briefing. His second issue regarding recusal was also waived for not filing a timely motion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and dissatisfaction with rulings does not establish bias for recusal.

Pro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewPleading DefectsSpecial ExceptionsMotion to DismissRecusal MotionJudicial BiasWaiver of IssuesProcedural RulesBusiness Partnership Dispute
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Springer v. Partners in Care

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought a lawsuit against Partners in Care under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging gender/sex discrimination following his termination. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's complaint was barred by the doctrine of laches due to an over ten-year delay in obtaining a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, and that the EEOC had exceeded its authority. The plaintiff contended he made intermittent inquiries about his case status during this period. The court denied the defendant's motions, reasoning that the plaintiff's delay was not unreasonable given his pro se status and his alleged attempts to follow up. Furthermore, the court found the defendant had not adequately demonstrated prejudice, citing the EEOC's record-keeping regulations and the unconscionable nature of penalizing a pro se litigant for administrative inefficiencies.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationLachesSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissEEOCRight-to-Sue LetterPro Se Litigant
References
23
Case No. PD-1050-14
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2015

Martin, Peter James

Peter James Martin, proceeding pro-se, filed a motion for rehearing following the denial of his petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on February 4, 2015. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, evading arrest, altering/destroying evidence, and possession of a controlled substance. His motion primarily argues for legally insufficient evidence of intent, knowledge, and causation regarding the aggravated assault charge, citing the deputy's alleged actions of running into the path of Martin's car, thus causing the 'threat' himself. Additionally, Martin contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to issues with chosen counsel and the unconstitutional abortion of a plea bargain process, where a judge's comments allegedly coerced him into waiving his right to chosen counsel and rejecting a 35-year plea offer unknowingly. The motion also details procedural issues regarding the confiscation of his legal documents by prison officials, which he claims hindered his ability to file a meritorious petition.

Criminal LawAggravated Assault Public ServantEvading ArrestLegal Insufficiency EvidenceConcurrent CausationRight to CounselPlea BargainIneffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
39
Case No. 06-01-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2002

Juan A. Escobedo v. Texas Workers` Compensation Commission

Juan Escobedo appealed the trial court's judgment granting a summary judgment to St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Escobedo had filed a pro se original petition seeking to set aside a determination of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) regarding a five percent impairment rating for his right ankle injury. St. Paul moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence from Escobedo and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to untimely filing and service. The trial court granted St. Paul's motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all procedural rules, thus rejecting Escobedo's argument concerning his pro se status and language barrier.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantProcedural RulesAppellate ReviewStatute of LimitationsImpairment RatingTexas LawLanguage BarrierEvidence Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. C.A. No. H-78-1831 (Consolidated Multidistrict Litigation)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1980

In Re Alien Children Education Litigation

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas Education Code Ann. tit. 2, § 21.031, which prohibited the use of state funds to educate undocumented children and allowed local school districts to exclude them or charge tuition. Plaintiffs, undocumented school-age children, argued the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by federal law, and conflicted with international law. Judge SEALS of the Southern District of Texas found the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The court determined that access to education is a fundamental right, and the statute imposed an absolute deprivation of this right on undocumented children, who are "persons within the jurisdiction" of the state. The state's arguments regarding fiscal integrity and deterrence of immigration were found not to be compelling governmental interests. The court issued a permanent injunction against the Commissioner of Education, preventing the implementation of the challenged sections of the Texas Education Code.

Undocumented ChildrenPublic Education AccessEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentState Statute UnconstitutionalityImmigration Status DiscriminationFundamental Rights (Education)Judicial ScrutinyFiscal Policy (State)Class Action
References
15
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
0
Case No. 2020-03-0905
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2022

Dickerson, Gary v. Dominion Development Group, LLC

Gary Dickerson, an employee-appellant, sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident while allegedly performing errands for his employer, Dominion Development Group, LLC. The trial court initially denied benefits, concluding that Dickerson failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the issues of timely notice, work-relatedness of injuries, or that the injuries occurred within the course and scope of his employment. Dickerson appealed this interlocutory decision to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, primarily due to Dickerson's failure, as a pro se litigant, to provide a transcript of the hearing, articulate specific appellate issues, or present supporting legal authority. The Board emphasized that pro se litigants must still adhere to substantive and procedural rules.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealDenial of BenefitsTimely NoticeWork-Related InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewTranscript AbsenceLack of Legal Argument
References
8
Case No. CV 96-5425
Regular Panel Decision

Blaskiewicz v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Michael S. Blaskiewicz, appearing with appointed counsel, moved to amend his pro se civil rights complaint, filed in November 1996, to add four named individual Suffolk County Corrections Officers and four unnamed John Does. The original complaint alleged claims of assault, battery, battery, negligence, and civil rights violations stemming from an incident on January 14, 1994, where officers allegedly used excessive force. The County opposed the amendment, citing the statute of limitations. The court, however, granted the motion, finding that the relation-back doctrine under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) was satisfied due to adequate prior notice to the County and a mistake of law by the pro se plaintiff regarding the necessity of naming individual defendants for punitive damages. Additionally, the court found equitable tolling of the statute of limitations due to the County's concealment of information regarding the officers' identities.

Civil RightsExcessive ForceAmendment of ComplaintRelation-Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingJohn Doe DefendantsMunicipal LiabilityPunitive DamagesFreedom of Information Act
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 8,188 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