Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 07-10-0486-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 17, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

A Lubbock police officer, Jarred Pierson, was injured while on duty and received workers' compensation benefits from the City of Lubbock. The City, acting as subrogee, intervened in Pierson's personal injury lawsuit against Ponderosa Apartments, the property owner where the injury occurred. Pierson subsequently non-suited his claims with prejudice, leading Ponderosa to obtain a dismissal of the City's subrogation claims. The City appealed, contending that its statutory subrogation rights should not be extinguished by the employee's voluntary dismissal. The Court of Appeals agreed, emphasizing that once a subrogee's rights are established by payment, they are not defeated by the subrogor's subsequent actions if the tortfeasor knew of the subrogee's claim. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimDismissal of ClaimsNon-suit with PrejudiceAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityReal Party in InterestSettlement ImpactRemand for Proceedings

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 28, 1983

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

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity

References

Case No. 2-02-287-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 22, 2003

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This workers' compensation subrogation suit involves Socorro Gray (Appellant) and Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD), subrogee of Elizabeth McKenzie. McKenzie, an employee, was injured in a vehicle accident involving Gray, leading FWISD to pay over $17,000 in workers' compensation benefits. Despite FWISD claiming a priority interest, Gray's insurer, State Farm, settled with McKenzie directly. FWISD subsequently sued Gray under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for FWISD, ordering Gray to reimburse the benefits paid. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that McKenzie's release did not bar FWISD's subrogation claim due to prior notice and FWISD's statutory rights as a compensating carrier.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeRelease AgreementThird-party TortfeasorInsurance CarrierAppellate ReviewPriority InterestEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 01, 1981

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation

References

Case No. 03-06-00480-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 18, 2007

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

The Texas Council Risk Management Fund appealed a judgment that it take nothing on its subrogation claim against Evelyn Caswell. The trial court had found the Fund's claim barred by a pre-trial release signed by Michael Stary, the Fund's insured, reasoning that as a subrogee, the Fund stepped into Stary's shoes and was subject to available defenses. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a settlement between an insured and a third-party tortfeasor after the insurer has paid a claim does not extinguish the insurer's subrogation rights. However, the court ruled that the awarded damages must be reduced by the amount Allstate Insurance Companies had already paid to the Fund. The court rendered judgment for the Fund against Caswell in the amount of $10,116.00 and remanded the case for a ruling on pre- and post-judgment interest.

Subrogation ClaimWorkers' CompensationInsurance LawThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement AgreementRelease of ClaimsMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewDamages AwardElection of Remedies

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case concerns a petitioner challenging a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a decision from the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The original finding stated that the petitioner discriminated against Lorraine Voigt and other female employees regarding pregnancy-related disability benefits. The court annulled the board's determination, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of discrimination. The petitioner had denied Ms. Voigt's claim as untimely according to section 217 of the Disability Benefits Law. The court found that the Human Rights Law does not compel an employer to pay benefits for pregnancy-related disability if the employer would not pay similar disability claims for male employees under the same timeliness rules, which the petitioner consistently applied.

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

The petitioner challenged a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding of unlawful discriminatory practice against the petitioner. The original complaint stemmed from the petitioner allegedly retaliating against an employee for opposing perceived sex discrimination, although the Division of Human Rights found no actual sex discrimination. The court had previously annulled and remitted the case due to an inconsistency, but the Board failed to clarify its findings. This court now rules that retaliation for opposing practices mistakenly believed to be unlawful is not protected under the Human Rights Law if the underlying practice was, in fact, lawful. Consequently, the Board's determination against the petitioner is annulled, and the petition is granted.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 6,750 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 07-10-0486-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 17, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 28, 1983

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

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity

References

Case No. 2-02-287-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 22, 2003

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Workers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeRelease AgreementThird-party TortfeasorInsurance CarrierAppellate ReviewPriority InterestEmployer Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 01, 1981

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation

References

Case No. 03-06-00480-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 18, 2007

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

Subrogation ClaimWorkers' CompensationInsurance LawThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement AgreementRelease of ClaimsMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewDamages AwardElection of Remedies

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Pregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawHuman Rights LawTimeliness of ClaimSex DiscriminationEqual TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAnnulmentSubstantial Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 6,750 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.