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. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

The plaintiffs, a class of current and former black employees of Metro Water Services (MWS), filed a class action alleging systemic racial discrimination in post-employment opportunities under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court found MWS engaged in discriminatory practices including tailoring job qualifications, lateral transfers, selective interview processes, and misuse of out-of-class assignments, all contributing to significant statistical disparities in promotion and compensation for black employees. Based on expert testimony and statistical analysis, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that MWS's practices caused racial disparities. The Court ordered remedies including back pay for named plaintiffs and class members, and the appointment of a Special Master to validate job requirements and establish formulas for back pay and compensation equalization.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 196442 U.S.C. § 1981Class ActionDisparate ImpactRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationPromotionsCompensation DisparityStatistical Proof
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest

This Memorandum Opinion addresses remands from the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit in the landmark employment discrimination case Falcon v. General Telephone Co. The court, presided over by District Judge Buchmeyer, conducted a 'rigorous analysis' and evaluated statistical evidence. It concluded that the individual plaintiff, Mariano S. Falcon, who claimed promotion discrimination, could not represent a class of Mexican-American applicants who were not hired, as their claims were not 'fairly encompassed' and Falcon lacked standing. Despite this, due to prior Fifth Circuit rulings, the court would permit intervention by one of 13 original class members to pursue the class hiring claims. However, the court ultimately found the class claims of hiring discrimination to be 'baseless' after a 'more specific evaluation' of the statistical evidence, determining that General Telephone did not discriminate in hiring. For Falcon's individual claim of promotion discrimination, a new trial on liability was deemed necessary due to conflicting testimony and the application of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine standards. However, any potential damages for Falcon were capped at $1,040.33, an amount significantly less than the $7,373.27 in appeal costs Falcon owed to General Telephone. Therefore, the court conditionally dismissed the case unless Falcon paid the appeal costs or posted a bond, after which only the liability of his individual promotion claim and related attorneys' fees would proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationRule 23(a)Statistical EvidenceDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentRes Judicata
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Sylvester McClain and Buford Thomas brought claims against Lufkin Industries under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging disparate impact due to the company's subjective employment practices. The court considered the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which involved demonstrating a prima facie case of disparate impact and satisfying the criteria under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Statistical analysis presented by the plaintiffs indicated a significant disparate impact on African-American employees across various employment aspects, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and layoffs. The court determined that the proposed class met all requirements of Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation) and qualified for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), primarily seeking injunctive relief. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification, severing individual monetary relief claims to ensure the predominance of injunctive relief.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionDisparate ImpactSubjective Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationTitle VII ClaimSection 1981 ClaimRule 23 CertificationNumerosityCommonality
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diehl v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiffs, former employees of Xerox Corporation, brought actions alleging age and gender discrimination under Title VII, ADEA, and New York State Human Rights Law, following a company-wide redeployment and reduction-in-force policy in 1992. The core of the case involved disparate impact claims, with plaintiffs arguing that Xerox's policy disproportionately affected males and employees over 40 years old in its Information Management subgroups (USCO/IM and CSS/IM). The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing with expert testimony from labor economists, Dr. Marjorie Honig for the plaintiffs and Dr. David Bloom for the defendant. The central issue was the admissibility and sufficiency of Dr. Honig's statistical analysis, which the Court ultimately found flawed for failing to identify a specific employment practice causing the disparity and for not performing regression analyses to account for non-discriminatory factors. Consequently, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact age or gender discrimination, leading to the dismissal of their complaints.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisparate ImpactReduction-in-ForceStatistical AnalysisLabor EconomicsExpert TestimonyTitle VIIADEASummary Judgment
References
26
Case No. ADJ2110739 (MON 0313927)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Rosalind Eskridge (Vallery) vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case returns to the trial level for a comprehensive re-analysis of applicant's permanent disability rating, specifically focusing on the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor. The Board rescinded the prior award because the judge's decision did not fully adhere to the *Ogilvie* en banc decisions, which mandate a specific four-step analysis for rebutting the DFEC. The judge must now conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, potentially developing the record further, to determine if the applicant's demonstrated earning loss and other relevant factors, including *Montana* factors, justify an individualized DFEC adjustment over the scheduled rating. The applicant bears the burden of proving that her evidence substantially overcomes the prima facie validity of the scheduled DFEC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRSOgilvie analysisAgreed Medical ExaminerDisability Evaluation UnitDEUAgreed Medical Examiner
References
6
Case No. SJO 0264010
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

CIPRIANO LOMOTAN vs. GE INFRASTUCTURE SECURITY, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

In *Lomotan v. GE Infrastructure Security*, the Appeals Board vacated a judge's notice of intention to impose sanctions and a related job analysis order. This decision followed a Commissioner's Conference where the parties reached a compromise and release resolving all issues, including vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found no basis for sanctions and determined the job analysis issue was moot due to the settlement.

RemovalAppeals BoardSupplemental OrderSanctionsWCJCommissioner's ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseVocational RehabilitationSupplemental Job Displacement BenefitsJob Analysis
References
0
Case No. ADJ6502802
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

JOSE OLIVEIRA vs. RIVER FRONT APARTMENTS, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a maintenance worker's shoulder injury sustained on June 8, 2007. The workers' compensation judge awarded 39% permanent disability based on a qualified medical evaluator's analysis. The defendant argued this analysis, which applied the hernia chapter of the AMA Guides, was flawed and that impairment should be assessed using the upper extremity chapter. After reconsideration, the Appeals Board affirmed the original Findings and Award, adopting the judge's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurymaintenance workerleft shoulderpermanent disabilitypanel qualified medical evaluatorAMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairmenthernia chapterWhole Person Impairment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 423 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