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. 2016-07-0772
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Jacks, Bonnie v. Camden Healthcare/Northpoint Senior Services, LLC

Bonnie Jacks, an employee of Northpoint, sustained a left shoulder injury in 2015. She requested an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits and approval of physician referrals to orthopedic and pain management specialists, as well as payment of outstanding medical bills. The employer, Northpoint, failed to provide a panel of physicians as required by law, instead offering Dr. Berry and later accepting a referral to Dr. Chandler. The Court found Ms. Jacks entitled to a panel of physicians for an orthopedic evaluation and ordered Northpoint to approve Dr. Berry’s referral to Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance. Additionally, Northpoint was ordered to pay Dr. Berry's outstanding bills totaling $340.00. The Court denied Ms. Jacks' counsel's request for attorney's fees but referred the case to the Penalty Unit for consideration of a penalty against Northpoint for failing to timely provide a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician PanelOrthopedic ReferralPain ManagementAttorney's Fees DeniedPenalty Unit ReferralRotator Cuff TearShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. 2022-08-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2022

Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Mr. Antron Evans requested a panel of psychiatrists, attorney's fees, and payment of a medical bill following a store robbery where he sustained a head injury. Family Dollar, the employer, contended he was not entitled to a psychiatric panel without a referral from an authorized physician, disputed the medical bill, and denied wrongfully denying the claim for attorney's fees. The Court denied Mr. Evans's requests for a psychiatric panel and payment of the emergency room bill, citing the statutory requirement of a panel physician's referral for psychiatric services and lack of proof for the medical bill. However, the Court granted his request for attorney's fees due to Family Dollar's five-month delay in timely initiating medical benefits. Additionally, Family Dollar was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties concerning the late filing of the First Report of Injury and the untimely provision of a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialAttorney's Fees GrantEmployer PenaltiesExpedited HearingPsychiatric ReferralStatutory InterpretationLate Claim ProcessingFirst Report of Injury DelayPost-Traumatic Stress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Svensen v. Svensen

This case is an appeal contesting the dismissal of a divorce action. The trial court dismissed the husband's petition because he had not met the six-month Texas residency requirement at the time of filing or hearing. The appellate court clarifies that the residency requirement is not jurisdictional but a qualification, meaning a plea in abatement should lead to retaining the case on the docket rather than outright dismissal. Consequently, the court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit and refusing its reinstatement after the residency condition was fulfilled. The case was reversed and remanded for reinstatement and trial on the merits.

DivorceResidency RequirementsPlea in AbatementJurisdictionDismissalRemandTexas Family CodeCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewMarital Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

Justice Boyd concurs with the judgment that a Texas statute requiring eyebrow threaders to obtain an esthetician's license is unconstitutional. However, he disagrees with the Court's adoption of a new 'unreasonably burdensome that it becomes oppressive' test for the Texas Constitution's 'due course of law' provision. Instead, he believes a law violates due course of law only if it is 'arbitrary and unreasonable, and therefore oppressive, because it has no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.' He finds the esthetician's license requirement for eyebrow threaders to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive as it lacks a rational relationship to public health and safety, despite agreeing that sanitation training is rational. Boyd emphasizes that courts should not 'legislate from the bench' but must exercise their authority to interpret the Constitution when a law is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. He concludes that imposing the existing esthetician licensing scheme on eyebrow threaders is not rationally related to the legitimate government interest in promoting public health and safety.

Constitutional LawDue Course of LawEconomic RegulationOccupational LicensingEsthetician LicenseEyebrow ThreadingRational Basis ReviewArbitrary and UnreasonableTexas ConstitutionSubstantive Due Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Case No. 2023-06-8324, 2023-06-8394, 44935-2022, 9562-2023
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2024

Salih, Ahmed v. Ean Holdings, LLC

Ahmed Salih, an employee, requested medical benefits for injuries from two separate work accidents where he slipped and fell on his left side. In one claim, he sought authorization for a direct referral to an orthopedic spine specialist from his treating physician. In the other, he sought a panel of physicians for medical treatment. The Court granted his requested relief, finding he is likely to prevail at a final hearing. The employer, EAN Holdings, LLC, was referred to the Compliance Program for failing to offer appropriate panels and accept referrals as required by law.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingReferral AuthorizationPhysician PanelSlip and FallCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCervical RadiculopathyRotator Cuff TearEmployer Compliance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dimitropoulos v. Painters Union District Council 9

The plaintiff, Peter Dimitropoulos, sued District Council 9 of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades ("DC-9") for age discrimination under the ADEA. He alleged the union improperly handled his grievance, failed to refer him to jobs, and wrongfully expelled him. The court found no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance or his expulsion after a fight were motivated by age. Crucially, regarding job referrals, the plaintiff admitted he failed to sign the required "out-of-work book," providing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not receiving referrals. As the plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact showing intentional age discrimination, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the ADEA claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor Union LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court CaseADEA ClaimJob Referral DiscriminationUnion Grievance ProcessMember ExpulsionDisparate Treatment
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 7,263 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