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. NO. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices to the State Auditor’s Office (SAO). Howard claimed his superiors retaliated against him by rating him below standard on performance appraisals and denying promotions and merit pay increases. He sued under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding Howard's good faith report, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Howard made a good faith report to an appropriate authority and that his report caused the adverse actions.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor’s OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialDamagesCausationGood Faith Report
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager with the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported several alleged legal violations by his employer to the State Auditor’s Office. Howard subsequently experienced retaliation, including denial of promotions and merit pay increases, which he attributed to his whistleblowing activities. He successfully sued the department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages. The Department appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including good faith reporting, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationPerformance EvaluationEmployment DiscriminationState Auditor's OfficeGood Faith ReportCausal LinkEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2014

Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC sued defendant Allstate to recover $3,490 for no-fault medical benefits provided to assignor Tracy Fertitta. The core issue was the medical necessity of "Calmare pain therapy" (scrambler therapy), a novel treatment. The court conducted a bench trial, hearing expert testimony from both sides. Dr. Ayman Hadhoud, for the defense, argued the treatment was not medically necessary, not cost-effective, and essentially a form of physical therapy. Dr. Jack D’Angelo, for the plaintiff, countered that the therapy, though new, had FDA approval, was used by the military, and reduced the assignor's pain levels. Applying the Frye standard, the court found the evidence regarding Calmare scrambler therapy reliable and ruled it was medically necessary for Ms. Fertitta's pain management. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the plaintiff, Forest Rehabilitation Medicine PC, for $3,490 plus attorney's fees and interest.

No-Fault InsuranceMedical NecessityCalmare Pain TherapyScrambler TherapyNovel TreatmentFrye StandardExpert TestimonyPain ManagementFDA ApprovalCervical Radiculopathy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1982

Claim of Lee v. Weiss & Sons Paper & Twine Co.

This case is an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board which held that the claimant was entitled to additional compensation under section 15 (subd 3, par v) of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The claimant sustained a work-related injury to his right knee in 1975, resulting in a 75% loss of use of his right leg. The employer and its carrier appealed the board’s decision, contending that the claimant did not participate in a rehabilitation program and did not prove that his impaired earning capacity was solely due to his injury. The court affirmed the board’s decision, finding that the claimant's physical condition prevented him from completing a rehabilitation program, but his five visits to the rehabilitation bureau constituted participation. The court also found sufficient evidence that the impairment of earning capacity was solely due to the injury, supported by the claimant's testimony and a physician's assessment.

Rehabilitation ProgramLoss of UseEarning Capacity ImpairmentWork-Related InjuryAppellate DecisionMedical ExaminationRight Knee InjuryAdditional CompensationStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04542 [162 AD3d 878]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Lorde v. Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Thomas Lorde, a carpenter, was injured after falling from an inverted bucket while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Margaret Tietz Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Lorde filed an action for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and moved for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Lorde appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Lorde failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as his testimony raised triable issues of fact regarding the availability of safety devices and whether his own negligence was the sole proximate cause of his injury.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Elevated Work SiteSafety DevicesProximate CauseWorker NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corum v. Holston Health & Rehabilitation Center

This Supreme Court opinion addresses whether the failure to file a statistical data (SD1) form contemporaneously with a final judgment in a workers' compensation case affects the judgment's finality for appeal purposes. The employer, Holston Health Care and Rehabilitation Center, appealed an adverse workers' compensation ruling, arguing the appeal time hadn't begun due to the missing SD1 form. The employee, Linda J. Corum, contended the appeal was untimely under Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Court held that the Supreme Court's procedural rules supersede conflicting statutes, ruling that a workers' compensation judgment is final on the date of entry by the trial court clerk, regardless of the SD1 form's filing. Consequently, the employer's appeal was dismissed as untimely.

Workers' CompensationAppeal TimelinessSD1 FormFinal JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureTennessee Supreme CourtRule 4Judicial PowerLegislative Intent
References
20
Case No. 01-02-01101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2006

N.N. v. Institute for Rehabilitation & Research

N.N., as next friend of her daughter A.B., sued The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) for damages stemming from A.B.'s sexual assault while hospitalized. A.B., who had a brain injury and was severely impaired, was sexually assaulted by another patient. The jury found TIRR negligent and awarded damages for past and future mental anguish. The trial court initially granted a JNOV on future damages and suggested remittitur for past damages, leading to a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the JNOV, finding sufficient legal and factual evidence to support the $625,000 award for future mental anguish. The court also rejected TIRR's constitutional challenges to the appellate rules and its factual sufficiency arguments regarding negligence. The case was remanded for judgment to reinstate the jury's verdict for future mental anguish damages.

Sexual AssaultMedical MalpracticeNegligenceBrain InjuryMental Anguish DamagesFuture DamagesJudgment N.O.V.Factual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyConstitutional Challenge
References
44
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,390 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