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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. 03-05-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

in Re Senior Living Properties, L.L.C.

Relator Senior Living Properties, L.L.C. petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the trial court's refusal to abate a lawsuit brought by former employee Betty Robinett. Robinett sued Senior Living for negligence and breach of contract after being denied benefits from an Employee Injury Benefit Plan following a job injury. Senior Living contended that Robinett was bound by an arbitration agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that Robinett's claims, including those sounding in tort, were encompassed by the arbitration agreement in the Employee Protection Plan, thereby compelling her to undergo mediation and binding arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment InjuryMandamus PetitionContract BreachNegligence ClaimEmployee Benefits PlanTexas Appellate CourtDispute ResolutionWorkers' Compensation AlternativeWaiver of Rights
References
19
Case No. 02-13-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Thomas A. Wilder, District Clerk v. Odell Campbell, Thomas Ray Robertson, Shawnta Renea Coleman, Scott Wiernik, Tairhonda McAfee, Marybeth Lynn Jewell, and Diana J. Najera

Justice Anne Gardner dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction against the district clerk. The injunction aimed to prevent the clerk from taxing and collecting court costs from indigent appellees who had filed uncontested affidavits of indigence. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 allows indigent parties to proceed without paying costs, and an uncontested affidavit of indigence is conclusive. The judge also argues that section 65.023(b) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code does not defeat jurisdiction because the injunction does not attack the validity of the divorce judgments but rather the district clerk's ministerial duty regarding cost taxation. Furthermore, the opinion states that individual motions to retax costs would not be an adequate legal remedy due to the potential for a multiplicity of suits, and the appellees have standing to challenge a systematic policy of the district clerk.

Temporary InjunctionCourt CostsIndigenceRule 145JurisdictionMinisterial DutyFamily LawPro Se LitigantsAccess to JusticeAppellate Court
References
25
Case No. 2017-06-0811
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Summers, Mary v. BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee, Mary Summers, initially reported a left leg injury from a fall at work, which the employer, BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC, accepted. Subsequently, Summers reported right shoulder and ribcage injuries from the same incident, which the employer denied, arguing they were not work-related. The trial court ordered the employer to provide medical treatment for these additional injuries. The employer appealed, asserting an incorrect evidentiary standard was applied at the expedited hearing. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, finding sufficient evidence that the employee's shoulder and ribcage injuries were likely a result of the work-related fall.

Interlocutory AppealInjury CausationMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRibcage InjuryLeg InjuryEvidentiary StandardPanel of PhysiciansDelayed ReportingPre-existing Injury
References
6
Case No. 01-10-01000-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Mary Collins v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Nick Roccoforte

Mary Collins, an appellant, challenged a take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict in favor of appellees Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Nick Roccaforte. Collins had sued for tortious interference and defamation after Roccaforte banned her from their facilities due to alleged misconduct and resident mistreatment. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while the jury's "no publication" finding for defamation was legally insufficient, the defendants conclusively established the substantial truth of the complaints against Collins, thereby defeating her defamation claim. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of no business disparagement and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

tortious interferencedefamationbusiness disparagementjustification defensegood faith beliefsubstantial truthappellate reviewjury verdictelder careindependent living facility
References
55
Case No. 01-15-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

This case involves an appeal filed by Mackey Glen Peterson, Tonya Peterson, Don Leslie Peterson, and Lonny Peterson against Silverado Senior Living, Inc., d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land. The dispute centers on the appellants' standing to bring claims on behalf of Ruby S. Peterson, a resident at Silverado. The plaintiffs allege false imprisonment, assault and battery (due to forced psychotropic drugs), breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, contending that Silverado acted against Ruby Peterson's will despite a revoked power of attorney. Silverado sought dismissal of these claims, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and that Silverado acted in good faith based on a valid 1993 power of attorney. The court previously granted a 91a motion to dismiss earlier causes of action, and Silverado is currently moving to dismiss the remaining claims.

DementiaElder AbusePower of AttorneyMedical DecisionsFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatteryFiduciary DutyConspiracyRule 91a DismissalStanding
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harwood v. Addison

Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the termination of her employment as a senior account clerk typist by the City of Watertown, following charges of incompetence and misconduct. The Appellate Division modified the determination, annulling the finding of guilt on one specification of misconduct due to lack of substantial evidence. The court also deemed the termination penalty "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given the petitioner's long service, lack of prior discipline, and external factors contributing to the issues. The matter was remitted for the imposition of a lesser penalty, not exceeding a two-month suspension without pay.

Employment LawAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Public Sector EmploymentWrongful TerminationJudicial ReviewPenalty MitigationDue ProcessSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. TP 13-02080
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2014

HARWOOD, BRENDA v. ADDISON, SHARON

Brenda Harwood, a senior account clerk typist for the City of Watertown's Parks and Recreation Department, was terminated from her employment following charges of incompetence and misconduct. A hearing officer initially sustained some charges but recommended an employee improvement plan instead of termination. The respondent, Sharon Addison, City Manager, adopted some findings of guilt and sustained an additional specification, subsequently terminating Harwood's employment. The Appellate Division found that the determination of guilt on one specific misconduct charge (charge 2, specification 2) was not supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of termination was disproportionate to the remaining sustained charges of incompetence, especially considering Harwood's 29 years of unblemished service. The court modified the determination, annulling the unsupported misconduct finding, vacating the termination penalty, and remitting the case for imposition of a lesser penalty not exceeding a two-month suspension without pay.

Employment TerminationMisconductIncompetenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionCivil Service LawPenalty VacatedRemittalSufficiency of EvidenceDue Process
References
12
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05898
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2023

Reyes v. Episcopal Senior Hous. Greece, LLC

Plaintiff, Miguel Reyes, was injured when a window fell on his head during a demolition project, leading him to file an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion for partial summary judgment on liability, citing a triable issue on whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted the third-party defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed both decisions. It found that plaintiff's conduct was, at most, comparative negligence and not the sole proximate cause, thus granting his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division also reinstated the third-party complaint, determining that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff suffered a grave injury as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Construction Site SafetyDemolition ProjectFall from HeightLabor Law Section 240(1)Scaffolding SafetyComparative NegligenceSole Proximate Cause DefenseSummary Judgment MotionGrave Injury DefinitionThird-Party Indemnification
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 538 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