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. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vengurlekar v. Silverline Technologies, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Gajanan Vengurlekar and Umesh Pachpande brought a class action alleging violations of ERISA, FLSA, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, along with state common law claims, against Silver-line Technologies, Inc., SeraNova, Inc., and affiliated entities. They sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or alternatively under Rule 23(b)(3). The court denied class certification in its entirety. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was found inappropriate because the primary relief sought was monetary damages. Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) was denied due to insufficient numerosity for ERISA claims, lack of similarly situated plaintiffs for the FLSA claim (which was dismissed sua sponte as plaintiffs were exempt), and issues with commonality, typicality, and predominance for the state law claims, particularly concerning the extraterritorial application of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Class ActionERISA ViolationsFLSA ViolationsNew Jersey Wage Payment LawClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality Requirement
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.

The plaintiff, Kimberley Larsen, filed a class action lawsuit against JBC Legal Group, P.C., and other defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Larsen alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA by sending a misleading collection letter attempting to collect debts from New York consumers. The plaintiff defined two classes, Class A and Class B, based on different alleged FDCPA violations. Larsen moved for permission to move simultaneously for summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, or alternatively, for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, primarily to shift the cost of notice to the defendants. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for simultaneous summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, citing Supreme Court precedent that typically requires the plaintiff to bear the cost of notice. The court also indicated that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is unlikely to be granted in FDCPA cases in the Second Circuit.

FDCPAClass ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23(b)(3)Rule 23(b)(2)Cost of NoticeFair Debt CollectionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDebt Collection Practices
References
18
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

McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Sylvester McClain and Buford Thomas brought claims against Lufkin Industries under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging disparate impact due to the company's subjective employment practices. The court considered the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which involved demonstrating a prima facie case of disparate impact and satisfying the criteria under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Statistical analysis presented by the plaintiffs indicated a significant disparate impact on African-American employees across various employment aspects, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and layoffs. The court determined that the proposed class met all requirements of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and qualified for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), primarily seeking injunctive relief. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification, severing individual monetary relief claims to ensure the predominance of injunctive relief.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionDisparate ImpactSubjective Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationTitle VII ClaimSection 1981 ClaimRule 23 CertificationNumerosityCommonality
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyle v. Intermagnetics Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that an unnamed claimant, who suffered work-related back injuries in 1985 and 1989, was entitled to reduced earnings benefits after taking a lower-paying job. The employer, Intermagnetics Corporation, and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier appealed, arguing the reduction in earnings was due to personal reasons, not disability. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's permanent partial disability was a contributing factor to the wage reduction, despite conflicting evidence. The ruling highlighted that physical limitations from a permanent partial disability allow for an inference of causation for subsequent wage loss.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsBack InjuryChiropractic TreatmentCausal RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWage LossEmployment ChangeMedical Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosiles-Perez v. Superior Forestry Service, Inc.

Plaintiffs, H-2B temporary foreign workers, filed a class action against Superior Forestry Service, Inc. (SFSI) and its officials, alleging underpayment and exploitation under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court considered Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and appointment of counsel. After a rigorous analysis, the Court found that the prerequisites for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) were met, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. Furthermore, the Court concluded that certification was appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief and incidental monetary damages, and Rule 23(b)(3) for non-incidental monetary damages. The Court also determined that a six-year statute of limitations applied to the AWPA claims, ultimately granting the Plaintiffs' motion.

H-2B visa programMigrant workersAgricultural workersWage violationsFLSA claimsAWPA claimsClass actionEmployment lawLabor disputesUndercapitalized workers
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbs v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc.

This case involves former employees of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in Niagara Falls, New York, who developed bladder cancer due to alleged exposure to orthotoluidine and aniline manufactured by the defendants. Plaintiffs, including Harry Gibbs, Robert Bailey, Anthony D’Orazio, and William Mooney, seek to certify a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) for a court-administered medical monitoring fund. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting mootness, lack of a recognized cause of action for medical monitoring under New York law, and insufficient amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding a factual dispute regarding mootness, concluding that a cause of action for medical monitoring is viable in New York, and determining that the value of the injunctive relief sought met the jurisdictional amount. While the court found a medical monitoring fund appropriate for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions, it deferred the final decision on class certification pending further briefing and potential discovery on the Rule 23(a) threshold requirements.

Bladder CancerToxic TortChemical ExposureMedical MonitoringClass Action LawsuitRule 23(b)(2)Negligence ClaimsProduct LiabilityDiversity JurisdictionNew York Tort Law
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 11,399 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