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. 03-97-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

A. James Lynn v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas

A. James Lynn appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed an order by the Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas. The Board found that Lynn did not possess the good moral character required for admission to the Bar of Texas, citing his engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, a public reprimand from the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and violations of HUD regulations. The Travis County District Court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, Lynn raised ten issues, including claims regarding the lack of substantial evidence, rational connection of character traits, constitutionality of the unauthorized practice of law statute, res judicata, right to a jury trial, and due process. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, overruled all of Lynn's issues, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that there was a clear and rational connection between Lynn's character traits and his fitness to practice law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Bar AdmissionMoral CharacterUnauthorized Practice of LawProfessional MisconductCertified Public AccountantHUD RegulationsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessRes Judicata
References
18
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Case No. 03-23-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2024

Norman Engel v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Cassie Brown, in Her Official Capacity The State of Texas and the Attorney General of the State of Texas by and Through Ken Paxton in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas And Illinois National Insurance Company

Norman Engel, an injured worker, sued his workers’ compensation carrier and several Texas State entities after an administrative law judge upheld his Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) certification. Engel challenged the administrative ruling, asserting constitutional, statutory-conflict, and delegation issues related to the 90-day deadline for disputing MMI. The trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction for the State parties and summary judgment for the insurance carrier. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found no errors in the dismissals and upheld the constitutionality of the challenged statutes and rules, rejecting arguments against the 90-day MMI dispute law and the delegation of rulemaking authority.

Workers' CompensationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment Rating90-day ruleTexas Labor CodeOpen Courts ProvisionDue Course of LawSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActAdministrative Procedure Act
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spears v. State

The claimant, a dump truck driver, suffered injuries from a fall while repairing his truck at a highway renovation site for the defendant, State of New York. The claimant sought partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Court of Claims denied the motion and dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that a highway is not a 'building or structure' under the law, thus the State had no duty. The court also noted the State did not own or contract for the repair of the dump truck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, concurring that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to owners of highways under repair.

Highway ConstructionLabor LawFall from HeightElevation RiskSummary Judgment DenialOwner LiabilityDefinition of StructureAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimNew York State
References
8
Case No. CA 12-00739
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

KIN, SUMMER v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Summer Kin, a claimant, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during a bridge reconstruction project. She filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against the State of New York, her employer's client and the property owner. The Court of Claims initially denied Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted the State's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the ladder provided improper protection and the State failed to demonstrate Kin's conduct as the sole proximate cause. The court also granted the State's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (iv) and 23-1.21 (a)) inapplicable or insufficiently specific. Kin had abandoned contentions regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawNew YorkAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory Violation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1984

Pastoriza v. State

Tomas Pastoriza, a carpenter employed by Yonkers Contracting Corporation, died after falling 41 feet at a jobsite. His estate moved for summary judgment against defendant New York State, alleging Labor Law violations for failure to provide safety equipment. The Court of Claims initially granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 and denied the State's cross-motion to dismiss. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing inadmissible evidence from a co-worker's affidavit and insufficient detail regarding the accident circumstances to prove a Labor Law violation. The appellate court otherwise affirmed the denial of the State's cross-motion, granting the defendant an opportunity to depose witnesses.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Safety EquipmentAdmissible EvidenceProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Breen v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This case addresses the aftermath of the 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in numerous student deaths and injuries. Plaintiffs filed six lawsuits, alleging that the University and its officials violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process by acting with deliberate indifference to a state-created danger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also brought state law negligence claims. The Court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the federal claims, finding the University immune under the Eleventh Amendment and the officials not liable due to a lack of "deliberate indifference." Subsequently, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. § 1983Eleventh Amendment immunityState-created dangerSubstantive due processDeliberate indifferenceSummary judgmentSupplemental jurisdictionState law claims
References
50
Case No. G-01-CV-670
Regular Panel Decision

Kimmel Ex Rel. Estate of Kimmel v. TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY

This order addresses multiple lawsuits stemming from the tragic 1999 Texas A&M Bonfire collapse, which resulted in twelve deaths and twenty-seven injuries. Plaintiffs alleged that Texas A&M University and various officials violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by depriving victims of substantive due process through deliberate indifference to a state-created danger, and also pursued state law negligence claims. The Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, ruling that the University was shielded by Eleventh Amendment immunity. It further found that the University Officials' actions, while possibly negligent, did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference required for a constitutional violation, dismissing these federal claims with prejudice. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice for resolution in state court.

Bonfire collapseTexas A&M University42 U.S.C. 1983Substantive Due ProcessState Created DangerEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentFederal Law ClaimsState Law Claims
References
48
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03888 [195 AD3d 1270]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2021

Matter of Spence v. State Univ. of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning a salary increase for nurses at Stony Brook University Hospital, initiated by the State University of New York. Petitioners, including Wayne Spence and the New York State Public Employees Federation, argued that the salary adjustments violated Education Law and Civil Service Law due to an inadequate study, and Executive Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act due to disparate impact on older nurses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the study sufficient and the age discrimination claims procedurally deficient. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the study was representative, the nonuniform pay differential was permissible under Education Law, and the age discrimination claims failed because petitioners did not file with the EEOC and the pay adjustments were based on a legitimate non-age factor.

Wage ratesPay differentialsNurse salariesAge discriminationCPLR article 78State University of New YorkPublic Employees FederationStony Brook University HospitalEducation Law § 355-aCivil Service Law § 130
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 24,637 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