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

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donaldson v. Texas Department of Aging & Disability Services

David Donaldson appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) on claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under the TCHRA and Title VII. Donaldson, an African-American employee diagnosed with multiple conditions including prostate cancer and PTSD, alleged DADS failed to accommodate his disabilities and discriminated against him through various adverse actions, culminating in his termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for DADS on the race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims, finding insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or materially adverse actions in those areas. However, the court reversed and remanded the reasonable accommodation claim, concluding that Donaldson presented a fact issue regarding DADS's failure to provide continued assistance for his disabilities despite initial accommodations. This decision partially reverses the trial court's judgment, necessitating further proceedings on the reasonable accommodation aspect of the disability discrimination claim.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTitle VIIEmployment Law
References
83
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Claudia Gomez

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

Plaintiff Terry Smith, a former Diabetes Sales Specialist for Bayer Corporation, filed an action under ERISA to recover long-term disability benefits, claiming wrongful denial due to psychiatric impairments including depression, panic disorder, and bi-polar disorder. The Plan administrator, Bayer, upheld the denial based on reviews by non-examining physicians. However, Smith's treating psychiatrists, Dr. LeBuffe and Dr. McCool, consistently found him disabled. The court found the Plan's reliance on non-examining doctors, who 'cherry-picked' medical records and distorted findings, to be arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court granted Smith's motion for benefits, denying Bayer's, and also awarded partial disability benefits, ruling that Smith's failure to seek rehabilitation approval was excused by the prior wrongful denial.

ERISALong-term disabilityDisability benefits denialPsychiatric impairmentDepressionPanic disorderBi-polar disorderAttention Deficit Disorder (ADD)Treating physician ruleArbitrary and capricious standard
References
26
Case No. 2016-01-0303
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2016

Buckner, Douglas A. v. Eaton Corporation

Douglas A. Buckner, an employee of Eaton Corporation, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for a spinal injury allegedly sustained at work. The employer, Eaton, contested the claim, arguing insufficient notice and lack of expert medical evidence for work-related causation. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, ruled that Mr. Buckner had a reasonable excuse for delayed notice and that medical opinions, particularly from Dr. Mazza, sufficiently established the work-relatedness of his herniated disc injury. The court ordered Eaton to provide medical benefits and temporary disability payments but allowed for reimbursement of previously paid short-term disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityNotice RequirementSpinal InjuryHerniated DiscCausationEmployer LiabilityMedical Evidence
References
9
Case No. 2017-06-1187
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2018

Sweeney, Howard v. Jerry Carter, dba Carter Roofing

This case concerns Howard Swenney, an employee who suffered rib, lung, and spinal injuries after falling from scaffolding while working for Jerry Carter, an uninsured employer. Swenney was not immediately taken to a hospital but later sought medical attention for severe pain. After Carter failed to provide medical care or temporary disability benefits, Swenney filed a petition which led to the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation investigating Carter's lack of insurance. The Court granted Swenney's request for additional medical treatment to be provided by Mr. Carter and declared him eligible to seek benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund. However, his request for temporary disability benefits was denied at this time due to a lack of expert medical proof regarding the duration of his disability.

Expedited HearingUninsured EmployerScaffolding AccidentSpinal InjuryRib InjuryLung InjuryTemporary DisabilityMedical BenefitsUninsured Employers FundWork-related Injury
References
2
Case No. 2015-01-0429
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2018

Lamm, Terry v. E. Miller Construction, Inc.

Terry Lamm, an employee of E. Miller Construction, Inc. (EMC), filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining a back injury while lifting an H-beam. EMC denied further medical treatment and temporary disability benefits, alleging willful misrepresentation of Lamm's spinal history and disputing causation. The Court rejected EMC's willful misrepresentation defense, finding no detrimental reliance on the inaccurate health questionnaire. The Court awarded Mr. Lamm permanent partial disability benefits totaling $41,393.97 and future medical benefits, determining that his injury and subsequent disability arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment. The decision was based on expert medical testimony, particularly Dr. Kennedy's opinion, which the Court found more credible given Lamm's consistent work history prior to the injury and his inability to work afterward.

Permanent Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsWillful Misrepresentation DefenseCausationPre-existing Condition AggravationDegenerative Disc DiseaseLumbar Spine InjuryImpairment RatingTreating Physician OpinionEmployment-related Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a taxpayer services representative, sustained a back injury in March 1981 while lifting forms, leading to a decline in attendance and eventual termination in November 1989. She applied for accidental and ordinary disability retirement benefits, both of which were denied by the Comptroller. The accidental disability claim was denied because the incident was not deemed an 'accident' under Retirement and Security Law § 63. The ordinary disability claim was denied as untimely, having been filed approximately six months after her termination, exceeding the 90-day limit stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 62. The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to the ordinary disability denial due to untimeliness and transferred the accidental disability challenge to this Court. This Court confirmed the Comptroller's determination on both counts, rejecting the petitioner's estoppel argument regarding the untimely ordinary disability application and finding substantial evidence to support the finding that the injury did not constitute an 'accident' within the meaning of the relevant law, as it resulted from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityOrdinary DisabilityUntimely ApplicationEstoppel Against GovernmentWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryDefinition of AccidentOrdinary Employment DutiesSubstantial Evidence Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ2320623
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

SAMIR SOLOMON vs. TRI VALLEY BUICK, PONTIAC, GMC, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for an automobile salesman injured on April 14, 2001, resulting in spinal and psychiatric injuries. The WCJ awarded temporary disability through June 22, 2004, 52¼% permanent disability, and further medical treatment for the psyche, but not the spine, denying defendant credit for civil damages. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, arguing various evidentiary errors, particularly regarding the duration of temporary disability and the need for spinal treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of both petitions, affirming the WCJ's decision, though one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant's temporary disability claim and spinal treatment need further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryPsychiatric InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical TreatmentCivil DamagesReconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 9,156 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