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

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinen v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney for disability discrimination based on perceived alcoholism, violating the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). A jury found for the plaintiffs under the NYCHRL and awarded damages. Defendants filed Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 post-trial motions. The court partially granted the Rule 50(b) motion, vacating punitive damages against Commissioner Kelly, but denied all other Rule 50(b) claims and the entire Rule 59 motion. The decision upheld compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney, finding sufficient evidence of his malice or reckless indifference.

DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityAlcoholismNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Punitive Damages
References
98
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. 727 F. Supp. 2d 95
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2010

Menghi v. Hart

Plaintiff Jennifer Menghi sued defendants Teddy Hart and Suffolk County for civil rights violations and Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) violations. A jury found in favor of Menghi on DPPA claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)) or a new trial (Rule 59) and sought damages reduction. Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees. The court denied Rule 50 motions, granted in part and denied in part Rule 59 motions (ordering a new trial on damages unless plaintiff accepts remittitur to $500,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive damages), and partially granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amounts of $230,878.80 and $1,081.80 respectively.

DPPA ViolationDrivers' Privacy Protection ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentHarassmentEmotional DistressGraves' DiseasePTSDCompensatory DamagesPunitive Damages
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kinneary v. City of New York

Plaintiff Joseph Kinneary sued the City of New York and several employees for disability discrimination under various federal and state laws, alleging "shy bladder syndrome." After a jury verdict in Kinneary's favor, awarding $100,000 in back pay and $125,000 in non-economic damages, both parties filed post-verdict motions. City Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) or a new trial/remittitur (Rule 59). Kinneary moved for reinstatement, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Court denied City Defendants' Rule 50 motion and Kinneary's reinstatement motion. It granted City Defendants' Rule 59 motion for a new trial on non-economic damages unless Kinneary accepted a remittitur to $25,000. Kinneary's motions for prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs were granted.

Disability DiscriminationShy Bladder SyndromeAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawBack Pay AwardEmotional DamagesRemittiturPrejudgment Interest
References
22
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

Whitton v. Williams

This case involves a civil action brought by plaintiff Matthew T. Whitton against New York State Trooper Jason Robles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations. A jury found Robles liable for unlawful arrest but granted qualified immunity to co-defendant Marlando Williams. Robles subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) and, alternatively, for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). The court granted Robles's Rule 50 motion, finding him entitled to qualified immunity due to the objective reasonableness of his belief in probable cause, even if the jury found otherwise. The court denied Robles's Rule 59 motion for a new trial, concluding that ample evidence supported the jury's finding of a lack of probable cause.

Fourth AmendmentSection 1983Qualified ImmunityUnlawful ArrestProbable CauseDriving While IntoxicatedSearch and SeizureField Sobriety TestBreathalyzerState Trooper
References
22
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,616 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