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. 03-04-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2005

Skilled Craftsman of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director

The case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which identifies private employers with high injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc., designated as hazardous, argued that the program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety standards already covered by federal law, leading to duplicative regulation. The district court initially upheld the state program, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the Texas program's practical effect is to coerce employers into changing behavior, thus conflicting with Congress's intent to avoid subjecting workers and employers to duplicative regulation. Consequently, the court held that the Hazardous Employer Program, as it applies to private employers, is preempted by the OSH Act.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkers' CompensationState LawFederal LawOccupational SafetyHealth StandardsDuplicative RegulationTexas Court of Appeals
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bollella v. Schweiker

This case is an action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which denied the plaintiff's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff, a 52-year-old skilled sheet metal mechanic, suffered a lumbosacral injury and a psychiatric disorder. While an administrative law judge (ALJ) found severe impairment, it was concluded the plaintiff could perform semi-skilled sedentary jobs, thus not qualifying for disability benefits. The court, however, reversed the adverse determination, finding insufficient evidence regarding the transferability of the plaintiff's skills to other occupations, especially considering his age. The case was remanded for a rehearing to specifically address the transferability of the plaintiff's skills.

Disability benefitsSocial SecuritySkill transferabilityVocational expertAdministrative law judgeLumbosacral injuryPsychiatric disorderRemandSedentary workSemi-skilled occupations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rios v. Enterprise Ass'n Steamfitters Local Union 638

Plaintiffs moved for class action certification against the defendant, Enterprise Association Steamfitters Local Union #638 of U.A., alleging racially discriminatory employment barriers in the steamfitting industry. The plaintiffs, including skilled steamfitters and those capable of learning the trade, claimed that the Union's apprenticeship program and membership requirements were discriminatory. The court found that the requisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were met. The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed as a class action, but the court defined two separate classes: one for skilled journeymen steamfitters and another for individuals capable of learning the skills.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationUnion PracticesApprenticeship ProgramsClass Action CertificationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSteamfitting IndustryMinority Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hurley v. Bowen

Plaintiff William J. Hurley brought this action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denying payment for skilled nursing facility care under Medicare Part A from October 2 to October 23, 1981. Hurley, who suffered a head injury, had his acute care benefits terminated by the hospital's Utilization Review Committee. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) twice denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council, on the grounds that he neither required nor received reimbursable skilled nursing facility care. The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. It noted medical advisor testimony that the care was not inherently complex or exclusively require a skilled nursing facility, and declined to apply the 'treating physician rule' to Dr. Goodman's ambiguous letter.

MedicareHealth InsuranceSkilled Nursing FacilityCustodial CareHospital InsuranceFederal BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilSubstantial EvidenceCerebrovascular Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thornton v. Heckler

The plaintiff, a 60-year-old individual with a heart condition and limited education, challenged the Secretary's denial of disability insurance benefits for a second time. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the plaintiff could perform his past work. Following a district court remand, the ALJ concluded the plaintiff could not return to his prior heavy and skilled work but could undertake semi-skilled sedentary work as an electrical inspector. The key dispute revolved around the transferability of skills under vocational guidelines, specifically whether the plaintiff, of advanced age, required 'very little' vocational adjustment as mandated by § 201.00(f). A vocational expert testified that the plaintiff would need more than minimal adjustment for training and psychological adaptation to a new industry and work setting. The court determined that the Secretary's decision lacked substantial evidence, particularly given the uncontradicted expert testimony. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's, and remanded the case for the sole purpose of calculating benefits due to the plaintiff.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActVocational ExpertSkill TransferabilitySedentary WorkAdministrative Law JudgeRemandSubstantial EvidenceVocational AdjustmentResidual Functional Capacity
References
11
Case No. CV-23-1472
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Brooks v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant Jacquetta Brooks filed for workers' compensation benefits in July 2017 for occupational disease. Her treating physician assessed various schedule loss of use (SLU) percentages for her right arm and leg. However, an orthopedic surgeon for the employer found a 0% SLU by comparing the claimant's injured body parts to her contralateral members, which had been previously injured. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a prior SLU award, adopting the 0% SLU finding based on the employer's physician's comparison and an interpretation of guidelines that allowed such comparison unless a

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Occupational DiseaseMedical Impairment GuidelinesContralateral Member ComparisonMaximum Medical ImprovementAppellate ReviewBoard InterpretationRemittalNew York City Transit Authority
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00210 [157 AD3d 1093]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Minefee (United Stas. Radio Networks, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns Delance Minefee's claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that United Stations Radio Networks, Inc. was liable for contributions, ruling that 'callers' were statutory employees under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a) as persons engaged in the performing arts. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The court found the Board's interpretation of the statute irrational, clarifying that the individual's services, not the overall artistic endeavor, must require artistic or technical skill. As the callers' services lacked such skill, the statutory presumption of employment was not met. The matter was remitted to the Board to assess whether a common-law employer-employee relationship existed.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipPerforming ArtsStatutory EmployeeLabor Law InterpretationAppellate DivisionReversed and RemittedRadio BroadcastingArtistic SkillTechnical Skill
References
2
Case No. CV-23-1472
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jacquetta Brooks

Claimant Jacquetta Brooks appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled she was entitled to a 0% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her right arm, leg, and foot. This decision reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's award of higher SLU percentages. The core of the dispute was the Board's interpretation of guidelines regarding the appropriateness of comparing injured body parts to previously injured contralateral (opposite) body parts for SLU assessment. The Appellate Division found the Board's interpretation, which limited inappropriate comparisons only to permanent contralateral impairments, to be unreasonable. The Court reversed the Board's decision, finding that temporary physical or functional impairments also make contralateral comparisons inappropriate, and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseContralateral ComparisonMedical Impairment GuidelinesOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewRemittalRange of MotionJudicial InterpretationPermanent Impairment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mtr. of Green (Republic Steel)

Richard Green, a bricklayer for Republic Steel Corporation, was laid off and subsequently refused an offer of lower-skilled, lower-paying laborer work, citing unsuitability. The Labor Department and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found him entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The employer challenged this, arguing that a collective bargaining agreement's 'Plant Waiver' clause should negate unemployment benefits if alternative work is refused. However, the court held that any agreement to waive unemployment rights is invalid under Labor Law § 595. The primary issue was whether Green had good cause to refuse the laborer position, which the court affirmed was supported by substantial evidence, considering his specialized skills, lack of prior experience as a laborer, and a significant wage differential.

Unemployment BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawSuitable EmploymentRefusal of WorkWaiver of RightsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWage DifferentialSeniority
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 167 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