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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Armstrong

The Supreme Court in Oneida County granted the defendants permission to amend their answer to include the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that the plaintiff was always aware of her employment status and had already received workers’ compensation benefits. Citing precedents such as Murray v City of New York and Caceras v Zorbas, the appellate order was unanimously affirmed without costs.

Affirmative DefenseWorkers' CompensationAmended PleadingsJudicial DiscretionAppellate AffirmationEmployment LawProcedural LawPrejudice and SurpriseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSupreme Court Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Carvalho

The defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15) following a jury trial in Supreme Court, Monroe County. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment. A key point of contention was the admission of testimony from the defendant's stepdaughter, who recounted his wife's excited utterance, 'he set the house on fire,' made as she fled their burning home. This testimony was deemed properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, the defendant's challenge to the admission of a co-worker's testimony was not reviewed, as the defense failed to preserve the specific objection ground during the trial, thus precluding appellate review under CPL 470.15 [6] [a].

Arson Second DegreeCriminal AppealHearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionEvidentiary RulingProcedural PreservationAppellate ProcedureTrial Court ErrorMonroe County Supreme CourtNew York Penal Law
References
3
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

Rotoli v. Domtar, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed an order granting summary judgment to S & K Trans., Inc., and DeCato Brothers, Inc., in a personal injury action. The Supreme Court ruled that plaintiff Daniel J. Rotoli was a special employee of the defendants, thus establishing a workers' compensation defense. The court found defendants successfully demonstrated that plaintiff's general employer, Upper Valley Employee Rental Agency, Inc., was an in-house agency created by defendants' principals, with plaintiff working exclusively for defendants. Plaintiff's arguments against special employment were deemed insufficient and contradicted by his own statements. Consequently, the record confirmed plaintiff's status as a special employee, leading to the unanimous affirmation of the lower court's order.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerAppealAffirmed OrderEmployment RelationshipTruck DriverEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
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

Building Industry Fund v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This Opinion and Order addresses defendant Local 3's motion for reconsideration, which the court treated as a new motion for summary judgment, regarding Count Eight of the complaint. The central issue revolves around the application of New York's Martin v. Curran rule, which requires proof of unanimous union membership authorization or ratification for tortious acts to hold an unincorporated labor union liable. Despite plaintiffs' arguments, the court affirmed the continued vitality of the Martin rule in New York. Finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such unanimous authorization or ratification for either a letter-writing campaign or alleged violent acts, the court concluded that plaintiffs could not recover against Local 3 under state law. Consequently, Local 3's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Count Eight of the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentReconsideration MotionLabor LawTortious InterferenceUnion LiabilityUnincorporated AssociationAuthorization and RatificationNew York LawFederal PreemptionPicket Line Violence
References
8
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 11,346 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