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. 03-03-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts/Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a cross-appeal stemming from a workers' compensation claim by Leonard D. Watts, who sought lifetime income benefits for injuries sustained as a truck driver. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (appeals panel) initially reversed a hearing officer's decision and awarded Watts benefits, but this decision was later set aside by a Travis County district court. In this appeal, the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (Texas Mutual) and the Commission challenged the district court's ruling. The Court of Appeals addressed arguments regarding the appeals panel's statutory authority for factual-sufficiency review and the interpretation of "issue" under the labor code, including legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court ultimately reversed the judgment of the district court, thereby affirming the decision of the Commission's appeals panel which granted Watts lifetime income benefits.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCross-AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCausationMaximum Medical Improvement
References
17
Case No. 07-02-0169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) appealed a summary judgment that relieved the Texas Worker's Compensation Insurance Fund (Insurance Fund) of liability for workers' compensation benefits to Glenn Everett, the real party of interest. The Commission contended that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act abrogates the common law defense of election of remedies and that Everett did not make an election. Everett had previously settled a personal injury suit for $37,500 and later pursued a worker's compensation claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Act does not abrogate the election of remedies defense and that Everett made an informed choice to elect remedies by settling his claim after consulting with attorneys, thus barring his right to workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesSummary JudgmentTexas Appellate CourtStatutory InterpretationCommon Law DefenseIndemnificationSettlement AgreementEmployee StatusInsurance Fund Liability
References
18
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Williams v. Doherty

The petitioner's termination as a sanitation worker by the respondent Sanitation Commissioner was confirmed on June 6, 2003. The petition, brought under CPLR article 78 and transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was denied and dismissed without costs. The court found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner violated the respondent's rules and regulations. The court also noted that there was no basis to disturb the respondent's credibility findings, citing Matter of Berenhaus v Ward. Given the petitioner's history of discipline over a relatively short employment period, the penalty was deemed not to shock the court's sense of fairness.

Sanitation WorkerTerminationDisciplinary ActionRules and RegulationsCredibility FindingsPenalty ReviewAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1995

Claim of Bonneau v. New York City Department of Sanitation

In December 1988, a retired stationary firefighter for the New York City Department of Sanitation filed a workers' compensation claim for lung cancer due to asbestos exposure. During a 1990 physical examination related to this claim, pulmonary asbestosis was first discovered, with a clear causal link to his occupation established by a medical specialist. The Workers’ Compensation Board deemed the lung cancer claim untimely but upheld the asbestosis claim, setting February 14, 1990, as the date of disablement. The employer appealed, arguing the asbestosis claim was time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 and that they lacked opportunity to develop a factual record. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the disablement date and that the employer had sufficient notice and opportunity to present its case.

Workers' Compensation LawAsbestosisOccupational Disease ClaimTimeliness of ClaimDate of DisablementAsbestos ExposureLung Cancer DiagnosisMedical Specialist OpinionAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. 03-94-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, the Subsequent Injury Fund, and Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. the City of Bridge City, Texas, and the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and other appellants appealed a trial court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction that found parts of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act unconstitutional. The trial court's decision was based on alleged violations of the Texas Constitution, particularly regarding the requirement of immediate payment of benefits during an appeal without reimbursement. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, dissolved the injunction, and rendered a declaratory judgment affirming the constitutionality of the statutory scheme. The court reasoned that municipal corporations are not protected by certain constitutional provisions and that the 'suitability' of laws is a political question. It concluded that the payment scheme was rationally related to the state's interest in securing prompt payments to injured workers.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation ActConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionDue ProcessMunicipal CorporationsGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationLegislative Power
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curran v. International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers

Plaintiff, an employee of Carborundum Company, suffered a partial hand amputation in a "rubber roll" machine accident on March 8, 1979. He sued his unions, International Union, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers, AFL-CIO, and Abrasive Workers, Local 8-12058, Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union, alleging state law negligence for failing to safeguard him from dangers and a federal claim for breaching their duty of fair representation. The unions moved for summary judgment, arguing federal law preempts the negligence claim and they did not breach their duty of fair representation. The court granted the unions' motion regarding the negligence claim, ruling that a union's duty to its members, arising from a collective bargaining agreement, is governed exclusively by federal law and does not include a duty of care. However, the court denied the motion regarding the breach of fair representation claim, finding sufficient facts and allegations to infer that the unions may have discharged their duty in an arbitrary, perfunctory manner or in bad faith, thus leaving triable issues of fact.

Union LiabilityDuty of Fair RepresentationNegligence ClaimFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSafety and Health CommitteeArbitrary Union Action
References
8
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. 650113/13; Appeal No. 1742; Case No. 2021-00579
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2024

Cooney v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Sanitation

Plaintiff Robert Cooney appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants, City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY), in a case alleging discriminatory medical disqualification for a sanitation worker position due to psoriasis. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that DSNY's finding was not discriminatory under New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants demonstrated that no reasonable accommodation would enable Cooney to perform the job duties safely and effectively. DSNY engaged in an interactive dialogue, and its medical director rejected proposed accommodations, explaining that the plaintiff's chronic psoriasis would be exacerbated by the work environment, rendering treatment ineffective and making him vulnerable to infection. The court found that defendants were entitled to rely on their medical director's opinion, despite a conflicting opinion from plaintiff's treating physician.

Employment DiscriminationPsoriasisReasonable AccommodationHuman Rights LawMedical DisqualificationSanitation WorkerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInteractive DialogueDisability Rights
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 03465 [127 AD3d 629]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2015

Cooney v. City of New York Department of Sanitation

The case involves Robert Cooney's claim of disability-based discrimination against the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DOS). Cooney alleged that DOS refused to hire him as a sanitation worker solely due to his psoriasis condition on his hands, despite his qualifications. The Supreme Court initially dismissed Cooney's complaint for failing to state a cause of action. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the complaint adequately pleaded a cause of action under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, noting that gloves could serve as a reasonable accommodation. The court further determined that whether DOS was justified in disqualifying Cooney could not be resolved from the complaint alone, and highlighted that the motion to dismiss was not converted to a motion for summary judgment.

Disability discriminationHuman Rights LawPsoriasisRefusal to hireReasonable accommodationMotion to dismissSummary judgment conversionCPLR 3211(a)(7)New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 27,646 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