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. 03-15-00007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

John Doe v. Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline And Linda Acevedo, in Her Official Capacity as the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas

John Doe, the Appellant, filed a grievance against a Texas-licensed attorney. The Chief Disciplinary Counsel (CDC) dismissed the grievance. Doe then filed a declaratory judgment action against the State Bar Defendants (Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Commission for Lawyer Discipline, and Linda Acevedo in her official capacity as Chief Disciplinary Counsel) after the CDC denied his request for its recommendation to the Summary Disposition Panel (SDP), citing confidentiality rules. The trial court dismissed Doe's claims for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity, lack of standing or mootness, and lack of jurisdiction over his request related to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Doe appeals this dismissal, arguing that the State Bar Defendants are not immune from suit under Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure 15.09 or Sefzik, and that his claims are justiciable and do not seek to enjoin a grievance proceeding. He asserts he has standing due to an injury-in-fact and that the case is not moot under the 'public interest' exception.

Attorney DisciplineGrievance ProcessSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActionLegal EthicsJudicial ReviewTexas LawConfidentiality of GrievancesDue ProcessAdministrative Law
References
190
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Toney v. Mueller Co.

This is a workers' compensation appeal concerning the denial of an employee's (Mr. Toney) motion to set aside a judgment, filed under Rule 60.02, Tenn.R.Civ.P., alleging a mistake regarding the extent of his injury. Mr. Toney had been awarded benefits based on a 15% permanent partial disability, but later underwent a spinal fusion, leading him to argue the original assessment was mistaken. The trial court denied his motion, reasoning that the conditions for which he was later treated already existed at the time of the original trial. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that Rule 60.02 serves as an "escape valve" for inequity, not merely for changed circumstances or dissatisfaction, and found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's ruling.

Rule 60.02Post-Judgment MotionPermanent Partial DisabilitySpinal FusionPercutaneous Lumbar DiskectomyMedical Impairment RatingJudicial DiscretionFinality PrincipleMistake of FactRadiculopathy
References
3
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Elias v. New York City Human Resources Administration

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits claim, filed on March 10, 1987, was timely. This decision came despite the claimant's initial failure to provide timely written notice, which was excused because the employer had actual notice of the injury. The claimant suffered a back injury on October 15, 1985, while at work, pushing a file cabinet. The Board found that the two-year Statute of Limitations under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 did not bar the claim. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling in favor of the claimant.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsTimely NoticeActual NoticeBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAppealExcused NoticeOccupational Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between District 15, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers & Numberall Stamp & Tool Co.

This case concerns a petition filed by District 15, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, to confirm an arbitration award against Numberall Stamp and Tool Company, Inc. (Numberall-NY) and its alleged alter ego, Numberall-Maine. Numberall-NY, a New York corporation, moved its production facilities to Maine, resulting in a dispute over unpaid severance and vacation pay. An arbitrator found in favor of District 15, but Numberall-NY failed to comply. Numberall-Maine subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting it was a separate entity not bound by the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied Numberall-Maine's motion, ruling that the relationship between the two corporations is a proper issue for the court, consistent with national labor policy concerning successor employers and arbitration duties.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionAlter Ego TheoryCorporate Veil PiercingSuccessor Employer LiabilityDiscovery OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeverance Pay
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Keefe v. Aramatic Refreshment Services Inc.

The claimant had two established workers' compensation claims for back injuries from 2004 and 2009, with benefits equally apportioned. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of benefits for the 2009 claim, specifically whether to use the claimant's 2009 wages or the higher 2004 wages. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the 2009 wages should be used for the 2009 claim, aligning with Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5) and § 15 (7). The Appellate Division affirmed this aspect of the Board's decision. However, the Board's unexplained reduction of a temporary total disability award to a marked temporary partial disability was found to be an error, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Board for further proceedings to address this inconsistency.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuriesDisability BenefitsWage CalculationTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRemittalApportionmentJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 15-0092
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Medical Board and Scott Freshour, in His Official Capacity as General Counsel of the Texas Medical Board v. Teladoc, Inc.

Teladoc, Inc. argues against the Texas Medical Board's (TMB) petition for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled a June 2011 TMB letter constituted an invalid 'rule' under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The letter mandated a 'face-to-face' physical examination for establishing a physician-patient relationship, effectively amending an existing rule (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 190.8(1)(L)) without proper notice-and-comment rulemaking. Teladoc contends the letter's departure from the rule's plain text (using 'such as' versus 'including') justified the appellate court's finding. Teladoc further highlights TMB's subsequent initiation of formal rulemaking to amend the rule, implicitly acknowledging the procedural necessity.

Administrative LawRulemaking ProceduresAPADeclaratory JudgmentJudicial ReviewPhysician-Patient RelationshipTelemedicineMedical BoardRegulatory AuthorityFace-to-face Examination
References
25
Case No. 05-15-00279-CR, 05-15-00280-CR, 05-00281-CR, 05-15-00282-CR, 05-15-00283-CR, 05-15-00284-CR, 05-15-00285-CR, 05-15-00286-CR, 05-15-00287-CR, 05-15-00288-CR, 05-15-00289-CR, 05-15-00290-CR, 05-15-00291-CR, 05-15-00292-CR, 05-15-00293-CR, 05-15-00294-CR, 05-15-00295-CR, 05-15-00296-CR, 05-15-00297-CR, 05-15-00298-CR, 05-15-00299-CR, 05-15-00300-CR, 05-15-00301-CR, 05-15-00302-CR, 05-15-00303-CR, 05-15-00304-CR, 05-15-00305-CR, 05-15-00306-CR, 05-15-00307-CR, 05-15-00308-CR, 05-15-00309-CR, 05-15-00310-CR, 05-15-00311-CR, 05-15-00312-CR, 05-15-00313-CR, 05-15-00314-CR, 05-15-00315-CR, 05-15-00316-CR, 05-15-00317-CR, 05-15-00318-CR, 05-15-00319-CR, 05-15-00320-CR, 05-15-00321-CR, 05-15-00322-CR, 05-15-00323-CR, 05-15-00324-CR, 05-15-00325-CR, 05-15-00326-CR, 05-15-00327-CR, 05-15-00328-CR, 05-15-00329-CR, 05-15-00330-CR, 05-15-00331-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2015

State v. Farhad Nayeb

Farhad Nayeb, owner of "Kim's Korner" in the City of Melissa, was issued approximately 54 citations for allegedly violating a zoning ordinance by cashing checks and electronically transferring money. The appellee argued that the former ordinance did not specifically prohibit or regulate these activities, making it unconstitutionally vague as applied. Evidence showed the city's code enforcement officer had previously considered check cashing incidental and normal practice. The citations stemmed from a letter from city management. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Nayeb, dismissing the citations, a decision upheld when the State sought a writ of mandamus. Subsequently, on February 13, 2015, the County Court granted dismissal of all but one related case. Nayeb contends the State's appeal is moot due to the ordinance's amendment, the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors, and the dismissal of the charging documents. He further asserts the ordinance was unconstitutional due to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, violating his due process and equal protection rights.

Zoning OrdinanceVagueness ChallengeConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionProperty RightsCriminal CitationsAppellate BriefTexas LawMunicipal Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 11,735 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