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. 08-20-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2022

Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission

Appellants Empower Texans, Inc. and Michael Quinn Sullivan appealed a trial court's summary judgment regarding their counterclaim against the Texas Ethics Commission. They sought a declaratory judgment that Texas Government Code sections 571.061, .172, and .173 violate the Texas Constitution's Separation of Powers Clause, contending the Commission is a legislative body improperly exercising executive powers. The trial court affirmed the constitutionality of the statutes, ruling the Commission is an executive agency with constitutionally granted legislative powers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that neither the placement of the Commission's enabling provision in Article III nor its hybrid appointment procedure conclusively establishes it as a legislative body. Consequently, the appellate court found no violation of the Separation of Powers Clause.

Separation of PowersTexas ConstitutionEthics CommissionGovernment CodeJudicial ReviewState AgenciesExecutive BranchLegislative BranchSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clear Water Psychological Services PC v. American Transit Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Clear Water Psychological Services PC sought no-fault benefits from defendant American Transit Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for a 90-day stay, arguing that the assignor, Oshane Crooks, was acting as an employee at the time of the November 10, 2014 automobile accident, falling under Workers’ Compensation Board jurisdiction. A key issue was the admissibility of an uncertified police accident report (MV-104AN) which suggested the assignor was driving a taxi. The court ruled the uncertified report inadmissible under CPLR 4518 (c) for authentication reasons, despite the officer's personal observations. However, acknowledging the unresolved factual question of the assignor’s employment status and the Workers’ Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction, the court granted the defendant’s motion, staying the action for 90 days for a Workers’ Compensation Law applicability determination.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentStay of actionWorkers' CompensationPolice accident reportAdmissibility of evidenceCPLR 4518Vehicle and Traffic LawPrimary jurisdictionEmployment status
References
12
Case No. 2015-455 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Metro Psychological Servs., P.C. v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves Metro Psychological Services, P.C., as an assignee, seeking first-party no-fault benefits from Travelers Property & Casualty Insurance Company. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the assignor's injuries occurred during employment, which would make workers' compensation benefits applicable. The Civil Court denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this order, concluding there was an unresolved issue as to whether the plaintiff's assignor was acting in the course of employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Civil Court to be held in abeyance, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights under the Workers' Compensation Law, underscoring the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeMedical ProviderAssigneeCourse of Employment
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valley Psychological, P.C. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff, Valley Psychological, P.C., provided psychological services to a woman involved in a motor vehicle accident, with claims assigned to plaintiff and covered by defendant, Liberty Mutual Insurance. Defendant denied these claims more than 30 days after receipt, leading plaintiff to file a commercial claim. Defendant asserted a provider fraud defense, alleging improper supervision by plaintiff's principal psychologist. Both City Court and County Court dismissed the claim based on the fraud defense, ruling that the untimely denial did not preclude this defense. However, this Court reversed, holding that defendant's untimely denial did preclude the fraud defense, as it pertained to excessive treatment rather than a strict lack of coverage. The matter was remitted to the City Court of the City of Albany to determine the judgment amount in plaintiff's favor.

no-fault insuranceuntimely denialfraud defensemedical services providerpreclusion doctrinelack of coverageexcessive treatmentworkers' compensation schedulescommercial claimappellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, alleging violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution due to his continued business interests. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctions to prevent further violations and require the release of financial records. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the 'Hospitality Plaintiffs' (ROC United, Phaneuf, and Goode) lacked Article III standing due to a failure to demonstrate competitive injury traceable to Defendant's actions or redressable by the court, and that their claims fell outside the Emoluments Clauses' zone of interests. The court also ruled that CREW lacked standing as its alleged injury of diverted resources was deemed self-inflicted and an 'abstract concern.' Furthermore, the court considered the Foreign Emoluments Clause claims non-justiciable as a political question and not ripe for judicial review, as Congress had not yet asserted its authority.

Emoluments ClauseStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionPolitical Question DoctrineRipeness DoctrineConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersEconomic CompetitionOrganizational StandingPresidential Powers
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Black

This civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involves protestors and activists who alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The plaintiffs displayed graphic anti-abortion photo-murals and claimed that university officials intentionally allowed counter-demonstrators to obstruct their exhibit, thereby impairing their freedom of speech and equal protection rights. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, as well as the plaintiffs' standing to sue. It denied the motion to dismiss for the remaining plaintiffs—Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., UB Students for Life, and Matthew Ramsey—finding they plausibly alleged constitutional violations based on viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. However, the court dismissed Gregg Cunningham, Darius Hardwick, and Christian Andzel from the action without prejudice due to lack of individual standing.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentEqual Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissStandingViewpoint DiscriminationUniversity ProtestsAnti-abortionPublic Forum
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Burke v. New York City Transit Authority

A subway train operator sought workers' compensation benefits for psychological injuries, alleging harassment by supervisors. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which determined the claimant failed to demonstrate that the stress was greater than that of similarly situated workers. The claimant appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board’s credibility determinations regarding witness testimonies from both the claimant and supervisors involved in the monitoring incident.

psychological injurywork-related stresssupervisory harassmentsubway operatorworkers' compensation claimAppellate Divisionsubstantial evidencecredibility determinationnormal work environment standardmental injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 467 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