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. 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
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. 13-10-00546-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2012

in the Matter of M. M., Jr., a Juvenile

Carlos Donaway, an engineer, sued BNSF Railway Company under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA) for neck injuries sustained in a 2009 locomotive collision. Donaway alleged BNSF's negligence and its conductor's violation of the "Radio Rule" (49 C.F.R. § 220.49). A jury found both BNSF and Donaway negligent, but only the conductor violated the Radio Rule, leading to a 90% fault allocation to BNSF and a $810,000 damages award to Donaway. BNSF appealed, challenging jury instructions on the Radio Rule, the omission of an aggravation-of-injury instruction, and the factual sufficiency of the past lost earning capacity award. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the application of the Radio Rule, the jury charge, or the damages calculation.

Railroad accidentFederal Employers Liability Act (FELA)Radio RuleJury verdictAppellate reviewNegligenceContributory negligenceDamagesLost earning capacityJury charge error
References
27
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03563
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2025

Merlo v. 49 Grove Realty, LLC

Lehi Alejandro Nuñez Merlo, a laborer, was allegedly injured at a construction site when metal sheets stored upright toppled and pinned him. He and his wife sued 49 Grove Realty, LLC, and ABC Restoration, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 (1), 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and part of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1), as the metal sheets did not require securing for the injured plaintiff's undertaking of retrieving a tool. Furthermore, the court determined that the accident did not occur in a passageway, walkway, stairway, or other thoroughfare, thus dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1).

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskGravity-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationFalling ObjectPersonal InjuryWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06050 [209 AD3d 1233]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Contractors Compensation Trust v. $49.99 Sewer Man, Inc.

Contractors Compensation Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued member Thos. H. Gannon & Sons, Inc. for unpaid deficit assessments. The defendant sought summary judgment, claiming the action was barred by a six-year statute of limitations, arguing the claim accrued upon the approval of the deficit assessment. Supreme Court partially denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that the cause of action accrued when the defendant failed to make payments according to the established payment plan on March 3, 2014, rather than the earlier assessment approval date. Consequently, the Appellate Division concluded that the action, initiated in December 2019, was timely.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insured TrustStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeficit AssessmentPro Rata PaymentAccrual DateSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird Department
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Corpus Christi

This cross-appeal addresses the interpretation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA) concerning a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Association. The dispute centers on whether the City's unilateral implementation of revised grooming standards and modifications to the Vehicle Accident Review Board (VARB) procedural rules constituted mandatory subjects for bargaining as "conditions of employment." Applying a balancing test, the court determined that both the grooming standards and the VARB rules had a greater impact on the City's management prerogatives, particularly public image and safety, than on the fire fighters' working conditions. Consequently, these issues were not deemed "conditions of employment" requiring collective bargaining. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on grooming standards and reversed its ruling regarding the VARB rules.

Collective BargainingFPERAGrooming StandardsVehicle Accident Review BoardConditions of EmploymentManagement PrerogativesPublic SafetyFire FightersUnilateral ImplementationLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavazos v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

The case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit to overturn a final ruling by the Industrial Accident Board. The dismissal was due to the appellant's failure to file the suit within the mandatory 20-day limitation period prescribed by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307 § 5. The appellant contended that worker's compensation law should be liberally construed, citing precedents like Ward and Standard Fire Insurance Company. However, the court affirmed that the 20-day filing period is jurisdictional and mandatory. It clarified that Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for an enlargement of time for mailed documents, was inapplicable because the appellant's petition was filed late, not merely mailed late. The court concluded that applying Rule 5 would improperly extend the statute of limitations, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Statute of LimitationsJurisdictionTimely FilingAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident Board RulingRule 5 TRCPMandatory Statutory PeriodLiberal Construction DoctrineProcedural DismissalWorker's Benefits Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,628 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