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

Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. v. Webster

A New York corporation, previously certified as a woman-owned business enterprise, was denied recertification in 1992, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The court rejected claims of inadequate explanation and procedural irregularities, finding the Hearing Officer's rationale, adopted by the Executive Director, provided sufficient basis for judicial review, and the hearing procedures were within discretion. Substantial evidence supported the denial of recertification, as control over petitioner's daily operations, including critical decisions on bidding, marketing, sales, purchasing, hiring, and field supervision, was shared between the sole shareholder Jean Zelezniak, her husband, and another employee. This shared control, coupled with Zelezniak's lack of expertise and the company's formation structure, led to the conclusion that the business was family-owned and not independently controlled by Zelezniak as required by regulations for woman-owned business enterprise status. Consequently, the determination to deny recertification was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Woman-owned business enterpriseRecertification denialCPLR Article 78Administrative reviewBusiness controlShareholder controlFamily-owned businessProcedural due processJudicial reviewExecutive Law
References
4
Case No. 08-93-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1994

Reyna v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

This is an appeal from a worker's compensation judgment, where Appellant Jesus Reyna contested the trial court's decision to present a "good cause" issue to the jury. Reyna argued that Appellee National Union Fire Insurance Company failed to properly verify its denial regarding the timely filing of his compensation claim with the Industrial Accident Board. The Court of Appeals reviewed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 93(13) concerning the requirement for affidavits to be based on personal knowledge for certain denials, like timely claim filing. The court determined that the affidavit provided by the appellee's attorney was inadequate as it did not demonstrate personal knowledge, making the denial ineffective. Therefore, the appellant's claim of timely filing should have been presumed true. The judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to this procedural error.

Workers' CompensationAffidavitVerified DenialPersonal KnowledgeTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 93Timely FilingIndustrial Accident BoardGood CauseSummary JudgmentPerjury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rylander v. Caldwell

Marcie Caldwell filed a class action lawsuit against the Comptroller, challenging the constitutionality of Texas Government Code section 51.702(b), which mandates a $15 court cost on criminal convictions to supplement judges' salaries. Caldwell alleged that the varying collection of these costs across counties violated her rights under the due course of law and equal rights provisions of the Texas Constitution. The Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and other jurisdictional arguments, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Caldwell's suit, seeking a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional and an injunction against the Comptroller's actions, fell within an exception to sovereign immunity and presented a justiciable controversy. The court also clarified that Caldwell was not limited to remedies under the Tax Code or Code of Criminal Procedure.

Constitutional LawSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefTexas Government CodeCourt CostsStatutory InterpretationDue Course of LawEqual Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1997

Merlino v. Schneider

The petitioner, a Spanish-speaking community-service worker, was denied civil service employment as a probation investigator after failing the oral portion of an examination. She challenged this denial, arguing that the oral exam lacked objective standards and that she was denied proper administrative review due to the respondents' refusal to provide an audiotape of her examination. The Supreme Court initially denied her petition, dismissing the proceeding. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding significant procedural shortcomings in the examination process and the administrative appeal. The court concluded that the petitioner's right to have her competency judged in a competitive examination process was violated and remitted the matter to the respondents for reconsideration pursuant to objective standards.

Civil ServiceOral ExaminationEmployment CertificationAdministrative ReviewObjective StandardsDue ProcessPublic EmploymentRemandAppealDiscretion
References
10
Case No. SDO 0251396
Regular
May 19, 2008

KENN FINKELSTEIN vs. BUILDERS STAFF CORPORATION, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that denied certain medications (Nexium, Lisinopril) and epidural steroid injections, while awarding Lipitor. The Board denied reconsideration, holding that the applicant failed to follow the proper statutory procedure for disputing the employer's utilization review denials. Although there was some question about the validity of the utilization review denial for the injections, the applicant's procedural failure was the decisive factor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award/OrderAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Further Medical TreatmentPrescriptive MedicationLipitorNexiumLisinoprilEpidural Steroid Injections
References
5
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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02469 [204 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

Matter of Olszewski v. PAL Envtl. Safety Corp.

Claimant Albert Olszewski appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's disallowance of his 2017 claim for a work-related left arm injury. The Board had denied review because Olszewski failed to submit a separate application form for the 2017 claim, citing internal guidance. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review on this procedural ground. The court noted that the internal guidance outlined cost assessments as penalties, not outright denial of review, and the procedural requirement was not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceAbuse of DiscretionClaim DenialForm RequirementsJudiciary LawWorkers' Compensation LawBoard Review
References
4
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Readyone Indus., Inc. v. Lopez

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, brought by ReadyOne Industries, Inc. against its former employee, Iveth Rodriguez Lopez. Lopez had claimed workplace injuries and filed a petition arguing that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (MAA) was unenforceable due to several reasons, including the inapplicability of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), unconscionability, violations of the Texas Labor Code, and the unconstitutionality of the FAA. The appellate court examined ReadyOne's challenge to the trial court's denial of arbitration. The court concluded that the FAA was applicable, the MAA was neither ambiguous nor illusory, and Lopez failed to sufficiently establish procedural unconscionability or other defenses to the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision and ordered it to compel arbitration. Justice Rodriguez dissented, arguing that Lopez's affidavit detailing her learning disabilities and claims of being misled about the MAA's contents constituted sufficient evidence of procedural unconscionability.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActProcedural UnconscionabilityEmployment DisputeMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Labor CodeContract EnforcementWaiver of Rights
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,052 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