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. No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Fagg v. Hutch Manufacturing Co.

This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by Hutch Manufacturing Company and its insurance carrier concerning an employee, Mrs. Fagg, who sustained a compensable injury. The appeal raised issues regarding the duration of temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, the extent of permanent partial disability (PPD), a 6% penalty for unpaid installments, and medical expenses. The Court dismissed a preliminary appeal as interlocutory. It found the trial court erred in determining the termination date of TTD, concluding that Mrs. Fagg's TTD benefits should cease on October 9, 1984, the latest date for maximum medical recovery according to Dr. Coughlin's evaluations. The Court affirmed the trial court's award of 65% PPD to the body as a whole, emphasizing the consideration of non-medical factors in assessing disability. Furthermore, the Court upheld the 6% penalty on unpaid compensation installments due to the employer's demonstrated bad faith. The case was remanded for a more explicit allocation of medical expenses.

Temporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingJudicial ReviewRemandPenalty for Non-PaymentMedical EvidenceObjective SymptomsSubjective ComplaintsWorkers' Compensation Appeal
References
12
Case No. 03-16-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision

LMV-AL Ventures, LLC// Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services and Commissioner Jon Weizenbaum, in His Official Capacity// Cross-Appellee, LMV-AL Ventures, LLC

This case is not as complicated as Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ Brief would suggest. On the merits, this case is about the meaning of "usable floor space" under 40 TAC § 92.62(m)(1)(B) and whether DADS ignored the plain meaning of those three words in calculating such space at Plaintiff's assisted living facility. It is also about the validity of DADS’ “secret rule,” unpublished and not promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, which DADS uses to justify omitting admittedly “usable” floor space. On jurisdictional issues, this case is also not as complicated as DADS’ Brief suggests. Contrary to DADS’ contentions, LMV is challenging both the applicability of Rule 92.62(m)(1)(B) and the validity and applicability of DADS’ “secret” measuring rule. “Applicability” under APA section 2001.038 and caselaw includes the application of the rule to the facts at hand. Further, the validity of DADS’ “secret” rule is challenged, because the rule was not promulgated pursuant to APA requirements and not published. Thus, there is subject matter jurisdiction under APA section 2001.038. LMV has standing to challenge DADS’ action because it imposes a regulatory burden and impedes LMV’s business opportunities. Under the APA section 2001.038 framework and relevant caselaw, LMV’s lawsuit is ripe and seeks more than an advisory opinion. In addition, there is subject matter jurisdiction for the ultra vires claims under the UDJA and subject matter jurisdiction for the constitutional due process claims (which DADS failed to brief). DADS’ plea to the jurisdiction and arguments in its brief are smoke and mirrors, designed to divert attention from DADS’ failure to (1) apply the indisputable plain language of its own rules and (2) follow APA requirements for promulgating otherwise “secret” and invalid rules.

Administrative lawAgency rulemakingUsable floor spaceAssisted living facilityRegulatory burdenBusiness opportunitiesSovereign immunityUltra viresDue processAPA
References
24
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cates v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Products Co.

An employee sustained a compensable lumbar spine injury at work, leading to a claim for permanent partial disability benefits. Her treating orthopedic specialist, Dr. Seung H. Lee, opined she had a ten percent permanent disability based on subjective findings, though he expressed difficulty in precise quantification. Despite this, the trial court dismissed the claim, stating the employee failed to meet the burden of proof. The appellate court, citing T.C.A. § 24-718, clarified the admissibility of medical opinions based on subjective findings. Recognizing the incomplete record and the trial court's dissatisfaction with the medical evidence, the appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing additional medical proof.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWorker's Compensation AppealMedical Expert TestimonySubjective Findings AdmissibilityRemand for Further EvidenceSpinal InjuryLumbar Spine InjuryMedical EvaluationBurden of ProofTrial Court Discretion
References
2
Case No. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mylette v. Mylette

The plaintiff moved to have the defendant's disability pension, from the New York City Police Pension Fund, classified as a marital asset subject to equitable distribution under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (4) (b). The defendant, a former New York City police officer, received the disability pension after a line-of-duty knee injury, terminating his employment after 12 years, short of the 15 years required for vesting. The court reviewed legal precedents from various states and New York, which generally treat disability pensions as separate property, particularly when compensating for personal injuries rather than deferred compensation. The court found that the defendant's pension was purely compensation for his injury, distinguishing it from retirement benefits, and that he had no option to choose a regular retirement package. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the disability pension is the defendant's separate property.

Domestic Relations LawDisability PensionMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionSeparate PropertyPolice Pension FundPersonal Injury CompensationNonvested BenefitsFamily LawProperty Classification
References
31
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

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,828 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