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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03716 [241 AD3d 101]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Doran Constr. Corp. v. New York State Ins. Fund

Doran Construction Corp. initiated a CPLR article 52 proceeding against the New York State Insurance Fund (State Insurance Fund) as a garnishee to enforce a money judgment. The State Insurance Fund appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied its cross-motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that Supreme Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction under CPLR 5207 and 5221 (a) (4) as the State Insurance Fund was acting as a garnishee holding funds for another, not as a judgment debtor. The Court also rejected the State Insurance Fund's arguments regarding public policy and the denial of discovery.

Subject Matter JurisdictionGarnishmentEnforcement of Money JudgmentsState AgenciesSovereign ImmunityCourt of ClaimsCPLR Article 52Appellate ReviewDiscoveryPublic Policy
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Vukel v. New York Water & Sewer Mains, Inc.

Claimant sustained injuries during employment and applied for workers' compensation benefits. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (PSMIC), the subcontractor's carrier, claimed its policy was canceled for nonpayment. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the cancellation ineffective due to lack of proper notice, holding PSMIC liable. A three-member Board panel reversed the WCLJ's decision, concluding PSMIC's policy was properly canceled and directed the State Insurance Fund (the Fund), the general contractor's carrier, to commence payment of benefits. The Fund appealed, raising due process and notice arguments. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no prejudice to the Fund and upholding the Board's factual findings regarding the cancellation reason.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsDue ProcessNotice RequirementCredibility of WitnessesWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundGeneral Contractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Maverick v. Texas Ass'n of Counties Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund

The County of Maverick (County) appealed a trial court's judgment that Nutmeg Insurance Company (Nutmeg) and the Texas Association of Counties Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund) did not owe the County a duty to defend or indemnify in a wrongful discharge lawsuit. Four former employees had sued the County after being terminated for filing workers' compensation claims. Both Nutmeg and the Fund refused to defend the County, which subsequently lost the wrongful discharge suit and was ordered to pay damages and reinstate employees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither Nutmeg's public entity liability policy nor the Fund's interlocal agreement covered damages for wrongful discharge, and upheld the award of attorneys' fees to Nutmeg and the Fund.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInterlocal AgreementPublic Entity LiabilityTexas LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Risk Funding Insurance Co. Ex Rel. Continental Casualty Co. v. Lambert

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning a workers' compensation carrier's waiver of subrogation rights. Larry Lambert, Rogers Patino, and Andres Garcia (appellees), employees of U.S. Contractors, Inc., were injured in a chemical plant explosion and settled with third-party defendants (Memc Pasadena, Inc., J.E. Merit Contractors, Inc., and Albemarle Corporation) for $1.8 million. American Risk Funding Insurance Company (appellant), the workers' compensation carrier for U.S. Contractors, Inc., intervened to seek reimbursement for benefits paid, but Lambert denied the claim due to a prior contract waiving subrogation rights. The trial court granted Lambert's motion for summary judgment, which American Risk Funding appealed. The appellate court addressed five issues raised by the appellant, primarily concerning the validity and scope of the subrogation waiver, including arguments about public policy, lack of consideration, intent to benefit appellees, waiver of future benefits, and common law conversion. The court systematically overruled all of appellant's issues, concluding that the waiver of subrogation does not violate public policy, does not require separate consideration, was intended to apply as contracted, waives rights to future credits, and extinguishes common law claims related to subrogation. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the summary judgment in favor of Lambert was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverSummary Judgment AppealPublic PolicyContract LawTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsEmployee RightsThird-Party LiabilityReimbursement
References
15
Case No. 03-01-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2002

Everest National Insurance Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Subsequent Injury Fund Leonard W. Riley, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And John Casseb, in His Official Capacity as Administrator of Subsequent Injury Fund

Everest National Insurance Company (Everest) sought reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund for overpaid workers' compensation benefits after district court judgments reversed prior agency decisions. The Fund denied a portion of the requested amount, leading Everest to file a declaratory judgment suit in district court. The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to Everest's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Everest was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because the Fund had previously stated no such remedies existed. The appellate court found Everest was authorized to bring a direct suit for declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to enforce the Fund's statutory obligation, remanding the case for a decision on the merits.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ReimbursementSubsequent Injury FundAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-03-00550-CV; 03-03-00551-CV; 03-03-00553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

City of San Antonio, Texas Acting by and Through the City Public Service Board of San Antonio v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

The Texas Court of Appeals considered the Public Utility Commission's rule 25.93 regarding the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information submitted by municipal utilities. Appellants, a group of cities, challenged subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93, arguing they exceeded the Commission's statutory authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) section 552.133. This TPIA section allows public power utilities to designate information as "competitive matter," making it presumptively exempt from disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court empowered to override this protection under narrow grounds. The court agreed with the appellants, holding that rule 25.93, as written, would improperly permit the Commission to unilaterally determine the validity of confidentiality claims, thereby contravening its duties under the utilities code and the TPIA. The decision reversed and remanded the case, declaring subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 invalid.

Public Utility CommissionCompetitive InformationTexas Public Information ActRule ValidityStatutory AuthorityConfidentialityMunicipal UtilitiesElectricity MarketAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
25
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Showing 1-10 of 6,983 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