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. 03-12-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves Larry F. York's challenge to an Attorney General's open-records ruling concerning the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL). York sought disclosure of various TGSL records, including board meeting minutes, a Strategic Plan, President's Reports, EAS-related documents, and a VFA application. The district court ordered disclosure of the actual minutes and EAS records but allowed TGSL to withhold attachments, the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and pricing information from the VFA application. The Court of Appeals largely sided with York, affirming the disclosure of minutes and EAS records and reversing to order disclosure of the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and other minute attachments. However, it affirmed the withholding of VFA pricing information and the denial of attorney's fees to York.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernment TransparencyStudent LoansGovernmental RecordsCompetitive HarmDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02766 [160 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Ibia M. Clarke, an employee of First Student Management, LLC (FSM), sustained personal injuries due to a defective condition at FSM's premises. She subsequently filed a negligence action against First Student, Inc., the premises owner. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of FSM, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, FSM. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAlter Ego DoctrineEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewCorporate Structure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL) appealed a district court's ruling regarding public access to its records under the Texas Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Public Information Act (PIA). Larry F. York, the original requestor, intervened, and the Attorney General also appealed. The appellate court largely ruled that PIA exceptions for competitive harm do not override OMA's requirement to disclose open meeting minutes and their attachments, reversing parts of the lower court's decision. However, the court affirmed that specific pricing information in a federal application could be withheld. The court also denied attorney's fees to York, an attorney acting pro se, stating he could not 'incur' such fees under the PIA.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernmental TransparencyPublic RecordsDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionAttorney's FeesCompetitive Harm
References
46
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Lead plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Elk-horn Partners LP brought a putative class action against Student Loan Corporation, its officers, Citigroup, Citibank, Citi Holdings, and Discover Financial Services. Plaintiffs alleged that Student Loan Corp. violated GAAP by failing to maintain adequate reserves for student loan losses and materially misrepresented its loan portfolios and risk exposure in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, and loss causation. The Court also noted that the named plaintiffs lacked standing due to a prior settlement order in a related Delaware action.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissGAAP ViolationsLoan Loss ReservesFinancial DisclosuresPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActScienterLoss CausationCorporate Governance
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Ms. Bene, a 64-year-old assembly line worker facing imminent job loss, sought to discharge her $56,000 student loan debt after making minimal payments over 25 years. The court analyzed her case under the 'undue hardship' test established in In re Brunner, considering how economic terms and the William D. Ford Program's debt forgiveness options have evolved since 1987. Despite earlier life choices, such as prioritizing parental care over completing her education, the court concluded that Ms. Bene met both the Brunner test and a 'totality of circumstances' test, citing her age, lack of professional qualifications, austere lifestyle, and absence of future financial prospects. Consequently, the court ordered the discharge of her student loan debt.

Student LoansUndue HardshipBrunner TestWilliam D. Ford ProgramBankruptcy DischargeFinancial DistressElderly DebtorCaregivingEmployment PrecarityEconomic Circumstances
References
13
Case No. 03-05-00489-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2006

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Santiago Morales, Jr., a school employee, was indicted under Texas Penal Code § 21.12 for engaging in sexual conduct with a student. The district court granted his application for a writ of habeas corpus, finding the statute unconstitutional and dismissing the indictment. The State appealed this dismissal to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order, holding that section 21.12 is constitutional. The appellate court concluded that the statute is rationally related to legitimate state interests in protecting students from exploitation and preserving an effective educational environment, and it does not violate due process or equal protection by being vague or discriminating against any class.

Constitutional LawCriminal LawDue Process ClauseEqual Protection ClauseStatutory InterpretationSexual MisconductSchool EnvironmentHabeas CorpusFacial ChallengeRational Basis Test
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The claimant, a food service worker, injured her left knee in April 2005, exacerbating prior injuries from a 1992 car accident and two 1995 work-related accidents. Her treating physician requested a total left knee replacement, but the carrier argued for apportionment of costs, suggesting the 2005 injury was only 15% responsible. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board rejected the apportionment claim, holding the carrier fully responsible, aligning with the rule against apportionment for non-compensable prior conditions where the claimant was fully employed. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the claimant was not disabled by the 1992 car accident at the time of the 2005 injury and that the Board's credibility determinations regarding conflicting medical opinions were entitled to deference.

ApportionmentPreexisting ConditionKnee InjuryKnee Replacement SurgeryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionCompensable InjuryNon-compensable InjuryFull EmploymentMedical Opinion DiscrepancyEmployer Responsibility
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05820
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Claimant, Kevin Ellis, a school bus driver, sustained work-related injuries in November 2014 when struck by a vehicle. His initial claim for workers' compensation benefits was established for injuries to his back, left hip, and left knee. The Workers' Compensation Board later amended the claim to include causally-related injuries to his right knee and right shoulder, based on medical evidence and testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the injuries to the right knee and right shoulder were causally related to the work accident, crediting the testimony of orthopedist Charles Peralo over the conflicting opinion of physician Harvey Siegel.

Workers' CompensationCausally Related InjuryRight KneeRight ShoulderSchool Bus DriverSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCredibilityAppellate ReviewAmendment of Claim
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 276 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