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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klumb v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

The case involves a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) board's authority to define 'employee' for pension eligibility. Petitioners, former City of Houston employees transferred to a third-party entity (CCSI), sought retirement benefits or cessation of pension contributions, arguing they were no longer City employees. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained 'members' due to the City's effective control over their new employer. The trial court and court of appeals dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing the statutory preclusion of judicial review for HMEPS decisions. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed, concluding that the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority and that the petitioners' ultra vires, equal protection, and due course of law claims were invalid as they lacked vested property rights in the pension benefits.

Pension LawStatutory InterpretationJudicial ReviewUltra ViresSovereign ImmunityEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal EmployeesOutsourcing
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. NO. 13-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

John Klumb, Veronica McClelland, Vivian Montejano, John Gonzalez, Anita Robles, and Charmaine Pilgrim, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, and the City of Houston v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension System, Barbara Chelette, David L. Long, Lenard Polk, Roy Sanchez, and Lonnie Vara

This case concerns a dispute over the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) and whether its board members violated the enabling statute by requiring petitioners' continued participation in the City of Houston's defined-benefit pension plan. The City attempted to remove a division of employees from the pension system by forming quasi-governmental entities. The pension board, however, determined these employees remained under the City's control and payroll, thus falling under the "employee" definition for HMEPS membership. Petitioners, including individual employees and the City of Houston, asserted ultra vires and constitutional claims, arguing the board unlawfully redefined "employee" and denied vested rights. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the pension board acted within its broad statutory authority in construing the term "employee" and the petitioners' constitutional claims were facially invalid as they lacked vested property rights in pension benefits or contributions.

Pension SystemEmployee DefinitionUltra ViresJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionDue Course of LawVested RightsMunicipal Employees
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broadhurst v. Employees Retirement System

Nancy Broadhurst, a Child Protective Services specialist, sought occupational disability retirement benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) after suffering a back injury. The Board of Trustees for ERS denied her application, concluding her disability did not meet the statutory definition of "occupational disability," specifically the requirement that the injury result from an "inherent risk or hazard peculiar to a duty." Broadhurst appealed the decision, arguing the Board misinterpreted the statute and that her injury, though occurring while sitting in a chair, was related to the increased risks of her job. The district court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the act causing the injury (sitting in a chair) was not peculiar to her duties, and thus she did not satisfy the statutory criteria.

Occupational DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas Government CodeInherent RiskPeculiar HazardState Employee BenefitsBack Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2011

County of Rockland v. Civil Service Employee Ass'n

The County of Rockland initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration sought by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. The grievances arose from the County's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement by assigning per diem employees instead of regular full- and part-time staff. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, permanently staying the arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievances and determined that the parties' collective bargaining agreement covered the specific dispute. Furthermore, the issue of the timeliness of the arbitration demands was deemed to be a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementCPLR article 75grievancepublic sectorPERBCivil Service Lawemployer practicesappellate reviewlabour law
References
7
Case No. 13-05-729-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Xavier Duenez and Irene Duenez

The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was initiated by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (BCBS) against Xavier and Irene Duenez, seeking to recover a portion of a third-party settlement the Duenezes had obtained. BCBS was acting as ERS's administering firm in this action. ERS contended that it possessed exclusive jurisdiction over such subrogation disputes under the Texas Employees Group Benefits Act. However, the appellate court meticulously reviewed the ERS Act and found no explicit statutory language granting ERS exclusive authority over subrogation claims. The court concluded that subrogation rights in this context were derived from a contractual Plan Document, not from statute, and therefore, the Legislature had not conferred exclusive authority to ERS to resolve these disputes. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order denying ERS's motion to dismiss, thereby retaining jurisdiction.

SubrogationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawInterlocutory AppealInsurance BenefitsHealthSelect of TexasDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
12
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Employees Insurance Co. v. Skinner

First Employees Insurance Company appealed a worker's compensation judgment concerning Jessie Skinner, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to send all exhibits to the jury during deliberation. The court re-evaluated its prior decision in Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Applegate, which held Rule 281 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to be mandatory. After reviewing statutory language and precedents, the court concluded that Rule 281 is permissive, allowing trial courts discretion in deciding whether to send exhibits to the jury upon a litigant's request. Factors for consideration include timeliness, cumbersomeness, cumulative nature, and the exhibit's character. The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal, noting the litigant's request, the timing during deliberation, and the voluminous nature of some exhibits. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationJury DeliberationExhibitsRule 281Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionMandatory vs PermissiveHarmless ErrorAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 03-01-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2002

Henrietta Flores v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Henrietta Flores, a social services aide, was severely injured in a car accident while performing her duties. She applied for occupational disability benefits from the Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS), which were denied by the Board despite an ALJ recommendation. The district court affirmed the Board's denial. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and the Board’s order, holding that the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Court found the Board erred in its reweighing of adjudicative facts, its unexplained changes to findings and conclusions, and its failure to provide notice of a new policy on preexisting conditions. Furthermore, the Court determined the Board misinterpreted the statutory definition of occupational disability, clarifying the 'primary-cause' standard for disability resulting from an injury and the 'peculiar risk' standard for state employment duties. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Occupational DisabilityCar Accident InjuryPreexisting ConditionAge-Related DegenerationAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionStatutory InterpretationCausation StandardPrimary CausePeculiar Risk
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 11,162 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