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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. 14-00-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2004

the Chair King, Inc., Chair King, S.A., Inc., Jerome Kosoy, M.D., M.E. Ford and Associates, Beautique, Inc., Discovery Services of Texas, Inc., Vantage Shoe Warehouse, Inc., Counselor Systems, Inc., Pope and Booth, P.C., Jeffrey K. Musker, D.C., and Pope v. GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc. and Chick-Fil-A, Inc.

This case concerns a class action lawsuit filed by a group of individuals and entities, referred to as 'Recipients,' against GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc. and Chick-Fil-A, Inc. (the 'Advertisers'), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) due to unsolicited fax advertisements, alongside common-law claims. The appellate court clarified that states are not required to 'opt-in' to allow private TCPA claims but can 'opt-out,' and confirmed the TCPA's applicability to intrastate faxes, its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, and the validity of its minimum damage provision against due process and free-speech challenges. The court affirmed summary judgment for Chick-Fil-A based on the statute of limitations. However, it reversed the summary judgment for GTE Mobilnet regarding the TCPA claims of four specific appellants, remanding those for further proceedings, while upholding summary judgment for GTE Mobilnet on all common-law claims and the TCPA claims of other appellants who lacked sufficient evidence.

Telemarketing PracticesFax AdvertisementsTCPAInterstate CommerceState JurisdictionFederal PreemptionFirst AmendmentDue ProcessStatute of LimitationsSummary Judgment Reversal
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1950

Milne Chair Co. v. Hake

The Board of Review found former employees of Milne Chair Company eligible for unemployment benefits, a decision upheld by the Chancellor. Milne Chair Company appealed, contending that the unemployment resulted from a labor dispute in which the employees participated, not from dismissal. The court examined whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the employees' unemployment was due to their dismissal, which the Board believed ended the labor dispute. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate evidence to support that the unemployment stemmed from dismissal rather than solely a labor dispute. Subsequently, on a petition to rehear, the court amended its opinion, finding the claimants guilty of misconduct (other than gross) and imposing a four-week disqualification period for benefits, while confirming that the employer would not be charged for experience rating purposes.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeEmployee DismissalPicket LineContract BreachEmployment Security ActSubstantial EvidenceJudicial ReviewBoard of ReviewMisconduct
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La-Z-Boy Chair Co. v. Reed

David Reed sought worker's compensation benefits from his former employer, La-Z-Boy Chair Company, claiming permanent disability due to exposure to 1.1.1 trichloroethane. His case relied on the testimony of Dr. Fred Furr, a "clinical ecologist", who opined that the exposure caused chemical sensitivity and subsequent health issues. However, the court found Dr. Furr's testimony lacked medical or scientific basis and was not generally accepted by the medical profession. Furthermore, Reed's exposure was below OSHA limits, and there was no evidence linking the chemical to his symptoms. Consequently, the court denied Reed's claim, stating his medical problems did not arise from his employment.

Occupational diseaseChemical sensitivityWorker's compensation1.1.1 trichloroethaneMedical testimonyExpert witnessCausationImmune systemOSHADisability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1984

Aucompaugh v. General Electric

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found a claimant's injury compensable. The claimant was injured attempting a handstand on a swivel chair during a work break. The employer and its carrier argued this constituted horseplay and did not arise out of employment. However, the Board found that physical exercises, including push-ups and chin-ups, were regularly conducted by employees during breaks, and the employer was aware of and permitted these activities. The Board concluded that it is reasonable for young men with physically demanding jobs to engage in some activity during slack periods, and thus the risk was a risk of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the "horseplay" was sufficiently related to employment to make the injury compensable, despite the employer's arguments regarding the isolated nature of the act and the claimant's initial misrepresentation.

Workers' CompensationHorseplayCompensable InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentPhysical ExercisesWork BreaksEmployer AwarenessAppellate ReviewAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2002

Anderson v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed his CPLR article 78 proceeding. The proceeding contested the termination of his employment by respondent Workers' Compensation Board. The Board's Chair directed respondent Peter J. Molinaro to terminate petitioner's employment while out of state. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the Chair has the authority to appoint and remove employees under Workers' Compensation Law § 149 and that the delegation order under Workers’ Compensation Law § 152 did not divest him of this authority. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Chair's request for Molinaro to inform petitioner of the termination did not alter the decision's origination and was within the Chair's power.

Employment TerminationWorkers' Compensation BoardDelegation of AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic Officer AuthorityAdministrative LawNew York LawAppeal DecisionAgency ActionChairperson Authority
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02158 [215 AD3d 1205]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Soler v. Donato, Inc.

The claimant, Wilfredo Soler, suffered work-related back and hip injuries in August 2017. Following a denial by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge in August 2021 for lumbar fusion surgery, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board initially authorized the surgery in November 2021. However, this authorization was subsequently rescinded by the Chair due to the prior denial on identical medical evidence. The Workers' Compensation Board then denied Soler's application for review of the Chair's rescission, deeming it outside its scope of review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that orders of the Chair are not subject to review by the Board under Workers' Compensation Law § 23.

Lumbar fusion surgeryAuthorization for treatmentRescission of orderBoard reviewAppellate DivisionScope of reviewTreating physicianEmployerInsurance carrierMedical evidence
References
3
Case No. 535327
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Wilfredo Soler

Wilfredo Soler appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying his request for full Board review. Soler's claim for work-related injuries was established, and he was initially denied authorization for lumbar fusion surgery by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). Although the Chair of the WCB later granted the request, this order was subsequently rescinded because the WCLJ had already denied the same request based on identical medical evidence. The WCB denied Soler's application for review, asserting that a Chair's order falls outside its scope of review under Workers' Compensation Law § 23. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Chair's orders are not subject to Board review.

Workers' CompensationAppealBoard ReviewMedical AuthorizationLumbar Fusion SurgeryRescission OrderScope of ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial ReviewAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1980

Claim of Zylbergleit v. Irving Rubber & Metal Co.

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant, suffering from a compensable heart condition, should be provided with an electric elevator chair for access to their apartment. The central issue on appeal was whether the disability originated from a myocardial infarction in 1969. The case was reopened in 1976 after a medical report confirmed a coronary infarction at the time of the 1969 injury, leading to a continuing disability. The appellate court found substantial medical evidence supporting the causal relationship and the necessity for the elevator chair, ultimately affirming the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionHeart ConditionDisability BenefitsElevator ChairMedical EvidenceCausal ConnectionCase ReopeningAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvania v. University of Rochester

Plaintiff commenced an action against Strong Memorial Hospital for injuries sustained from a fall involving a defective chair. The Supreme Court denied in part the hospital's motion for summary judgment, and this decision was appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, rejecting the defendant's arguments. Defendant contended that plaintiff introduced a new theory of liability regarding a defective footrest and that it lacked constructive notice of the chair's condition. The court found that the original complaint sufficiently covered the footrest theory and that the defendant failed to prove adequate inspection practices to negate constructive notice.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeDefective ConditionPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPleading RequirementsAffirmed Decision
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 57 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