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

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2010

Claim of Castelli v. NRG

The claimant developed asbestosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to asbestos exposure during employment, with a disablement date of November 13, 2008. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application. This denial was based on 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) that closed the Fund to claims with disablement dates after July 1, 2007. The employer appealed, arguing the time limit was inapplicable to dust disease claims and that statutory definitions supported their interpretation. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory language and legislative history unequivocally intended to close the Fund to all new claims, including dust diseases, with disablement dates post-July 1, 2007.

asbestosasbestosischronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseSpecial Disability FundWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(8)2007 amendmentsdate of disablementdust diseaseoccupational diseasereimbursement claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlucci v. Omnibus Printing Co.

The claimant, a pressman, developed various respiratory, pulmonary, and cardiac disorders during his employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board later determined a permanent moderate partial disability and reduced the compensation award, which the claimant appealed. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board had incorrectly relied on inapplicable medical guidelines for low back total disability when assessing the claimant's condition. The case was subsequently remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for a proper re-assessment of the medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittalDisability AssessmentRespiratory DisordersCardiac DisordersPulmonary DisordersNew York Law
References
4
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

Plaintiff Terry Smith, a former Diabetes Sales Specialist for Bayer Corporation, filed an action under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits, claiming wrongful denial due to psychiatric impairments including depression, panic disorder, and bi-polar disorder. The Plan administrator, Bayer, upheld the denial based on reviews by non-examining physicians. However, Smith's treating psychiatrists, Dr. LeBuffe and Dr. McCool, consistently found him disabled. The court found the Plan's reliance on non-examining doctors, who 'cherry-picked' medical records and distorted findings, to be arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted Smith's motion for benefits, denying Bayer's, and also awarded partial disability benefits, ruling that Smith's failure to seek rehabilitation approval was excused by the prior wrongful denial.

ERISALong-term disabilityDisability benefits denialPsychiatric impairmentDepressionPanic disorderBi-polar disorderAttention Deficit Disorder (ADD)Treating physician ruleArbitrary and capricious standard
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1978

Claim of Falcone v. Western Electric Co.

The case involves an appeal of a Workers' Compensation Board decision that set the claimant's date of disablement as July 30, 1973. The claimant, an employee of Western Electric Company, Inc., developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to polyurethane exposure, initially experiencing symptoms in 1966. While a medical report from Dr. Ehret in 1966 identified bronchial asthma, the condition was not considered disabling until July 30, 1973, when the claimant first lost work time due to respiratory issues. The Board's decision, which also discharged the Special Fund from liability under section 25-a of the Workers’ Compensation Law, was affirmed by the appellate court, finding substantial evidence to support the determination of the disablement date.

Occupational DiseaseChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseBronchial AsthmaPolyurethane ExposureToluene Diisocyanate (TD1)Date of DisablementWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial FundsSubstantial EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1977

Claim of Johnson v. International Talc Co.

Claimant's deceased husband, an employee of International Talc Company, developed a partial pulmonary disability, specifically pneumoconiosis and pulmonary emphysema, due to occupational exposure to talc and silicosis dust over 20 years. He filed a compensation claim in May 1973 and died in November 1973. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that while the pulmonary disability was causally related to his occupation, his death was not. Conflicting medical testimonies were presented regarding the extent of disability and the causal link of death to his occupation, with an impartial specialist concurring with the Board's finding on the death. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that Section 39 of the Workers' Compensation Law at the time did not permit awards for partial disability resulting from dust disease.

PneumoconiosisSilicosisPulmonary EmphysemaPartial DisabilityDust DiseaseCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceBoard FindingsAppellate AffirmationStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02301 [182 AD3d 821]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Matter of Community, Work, & Independence, Inc. v. New York State Off. for People with Dev. Disabilities

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Community, Work, and Independence, Inc. (petitioner) to challenge a determination affirming the objection to its proposed discharge of M.D., an individual with developmental disabilities, from day habilitation services. M.D.'s parents objected to the discharge, and an administrative hearing sustained their objection, a decision later affirmed by the Commissioner of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding that the burden of proof was appropriately placed on the service provider. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding that discharging M.D. was not reasonable, considering his needs, the lack of suitable alternative programs, and despite the petitioner's financial concerns. The court suggested that financial issues for service providers should be addressed by seeking increased funding rather than by discharging individuals.

Developmental DisabilityHCBS WaiverDischarge ServicesAdministrative HearingBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceFinancial ConcernsService ProviderMedicaid FundingAutism Spectrum
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,057 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