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. 13-07-386-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2007

in Re: Cna Lloyds of Texas

The relators, CNA Lloyds of Texas, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking relief from a trial court's discovery orders. They argued the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, ordered discovery prematurely, and issued an unduly burdensome order. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas found that the relators failed to establish their entitlement to the relief sought. The court noted that the trial court had not yet ruled on pleas to the jurisdiction and possessed broad discretion in scheduling discovery. The court also determined that the discovery order was not unduly burdensome and that relators did not prove potential criminal liability. Consequently, the Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and lifted the previously imposed stay.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeSubject-Matter JurisdictionTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationPleas to the JurisdictionUnduly Burdensome DiscoveryCriminal LiabilityTexas Court of Appeals
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Michelle V. v. Brandon V.

The mother appealed Family Court orders that denied her request to relocate with her child to New Jersey and granted sole custody to the father. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's custody and relocation determinations, finding ample support in the record for the father's objections to the move and the mother's lack of genuine effort to find local employment. However, the appellate court modified the visitation order, ruling that requiring the mother to travel to Ithaca for all exchanges was unduly burdensome and remitted this specific issue to the Family Court for reconsideration of the exchange point.

RelocationChild CustodyBest Interests of the ChildParental RelocationVisitation RightsFamily Court Act Article 6Appellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationPro Se LitigantTompkins County
References
18
Case No. ADJ11555555
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

BRYANT DOUGLASS vs. HERTZ CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INCORPORATED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision, upholding the denial of temporary disability indemnity for the applicant. The applicant claimed entitlement to benefits due to refusal of modified work at a third-party organization, arguing the offer was inappropriate and the defendant's notice was non-compliant. The Board found the applicant's reasons for refusal were not sufficiently communicated to the defendant and did not constitute good cause, as the modified work itself did not violate medical restrictions and the surrounding circumstances were not unduly burdensome. The applicant's claims regarding notice compliance were also dismissed as not having been raised at trial.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityModified WorkRefusal of WorkAD RulesCredibility DeterminationBona Fide OfferPrimary Treating PhysicianAdministrative Law Judge
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

The appellant sought to overturn a $660.90 worker's compensation judgment. The appeal presented three points of error. First, the appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a protective order for the appellee's claim file, which was claimed to be prepared in anticipation of litigation, but determined this error was not reversible due to lack of demonstrated harm. Second, the court upheld the trial court's decision to sustain objections to certain interrogatories as unduly burdensome. Finally, a third point regarding the relevance of companies appellee insures was dismissed as being outside the scope of the appeal. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Worker's Compensation LawDiscovery OrdersAnticipation of Litigation PrivilegeAbuse of DiscretionReversible Error StandardMandamus ReliefInterrogatory ObjectionsBurdensome Discovery RequestsMedical Expert TestimonyImpeachment Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. Doherty

Plaintiff Allocco Recycling, Ltd. subpoenaed non-party Urbitran Associates, Inc. for documents prepared for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Defendant John Doherty, Commissioner of DSNY, moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, claiming the documents were irrelevant, unduly burdensome to produce, and protected by deliberative process privilege. Allocco cross-moved to compel production. This memorandum decision specifically addresses the deliberative process privilege claim, finding that the documents, which involve data collection and analysis by a government consultant, are purely factual and do not constitute advisory opinions or policy deliberations. Therefore, the court ruled that the documents are not protected by the deliberative process privilege.

Deliberative Process PrivilegeSubpoenaMotion to QuashProtective OrderMotion to CompelDiscoveryGovernment DocumentsFactual InformationAgency PolicyGovernment Consultant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Sears, Roebuck and Company and Ford Motor Company filed petitions for writ of mandamus, challenging trial court discovery rulings in an underlying automotive brake asbestos litigation. The real parties in interest are the parents of Albert Douglas, Jr., who died from mesothelioma allegedly due to asbestos exposure from his stepfather's work. Petitioners argued that the requests for workers' compensation files and other asbestos-related documents were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and sought irrelevant information. The court found that while some documents might be relevant, the discovery requests lacked necessary limitations regarding product, exposure, time, and locale. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering compliance with these overly broad requests.

Asbestos LitigationMandamusDiscovery DisputeOverbroad DiscoveryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsAutomotive BrakesMesotheliomaTrial Court DiscretionTexas Civil ProcedureRelevance of Evidence
References
19
Case No. CA 12-01288
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

GILES, SHAWN v. YI, A. GI

Plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained from lead-based paint exposure. Defendants moved to compel plaintiff to produce medical reports detailing diagnosis and causal link to lead exposure before conducting medical examinations. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for a protective order. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that given the complexity of lead paint cases where injuries are not specific and a direct causal link was absent from initially disclosed records, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring proof of medical causation prior to defense medical examinations. The dissent argued this requirement imposes an unduly burdensome expert witness obligation not envisioned by relevant procedural rules.

Lead PaintPersonal InjuryDiscoveryMedical ExaminationCPLR 312122 NYCRR 202.17CausationExpert WitnessProtective OrderAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. v. United States

The plaintiffs, owners of the Hyundai New World, brought an action under the Suits in Admiralty Act against the United States, alleging their vessel grounded due to a negligently published nautical chart by the Defense Mapping Agency (DMA). The government moved to dismiss, citing 10 U.S.C. § 2798, a recently enacted statute barring such claims. Plaintiffs sought extensive discovery regarding the statute's legislative history and intent, arguing its unconstitutionality on separation of powers and due process grounds if applied retroactively. The Court, presided over by Judge Leisure, affirmed its jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction but ultimately deemed the plaintiffs' discovery requests irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. Consequently, the Court granted the defendant's motion to quash discovery, extending the deadline for the motion to dismiss response.

Suits in Admiralty ActDefense Mapping AgencyNautical Chart AccuracyVessel GroundingSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to Quash DiscoveryStatutory RetroactivitySeparation of PowersCongressional IntentDue Process (Fifth Amendment)
References
12
Case No. ADJ8727749
Regular
Sep 26, 2013

CINDY VARGAS vs. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an employer's petition to remove a WCJ's order compelling them to provide a complete list of their Medical Provider Network (MPN) in specific specialties. The employer argued this was overly burdensome, preferring to limit the list to providers within 30 miles of the applicant's residence. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the WCJ's order was not burdensome or harassing under Administrative Director Rule 9767.12(f)(3). The Board noted the employer could fulfill the order electronically via CD or website, even if limited to the requested specialties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMedical Provider NetworkMPN listingTitle 8 Cal. Reg. § 9767.12(f)(3)Administrative Director Ruleregional area listingcomplete provider listingelectronic listingCD
References
0
Case No. 06-10-00082-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2010

Jonathan Bernard Morgan v. State

Jonathan Bernard Morgan, a convicted felon, appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm after a pistol was found in a rented truck he was driving during a traffic stop for speeding. Morgan contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove he possessed the weapon and that his detention was unduly prolonged, making the search improper. The Court of Appeals found the evidence sufficient, noting the gun was in a vehicle driven by Morgan, the only occupant, and was conveniently accessible. The court also concluded that the detention was not unduly prolonged because the officer was still processing the traffic stop and running checks on Morgan's license and vehicle registration when consent to search was obtained. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Unlawful Possession of FirearmFelon in PossessionTraffic StopConsensual SearchFourth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyProlonged DetentionCriminal Appeal
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 105 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