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. 00-80050A
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2000

Victory Markets, Inc. v. NYS Unemployment Insurance (In Re Victory Markets Inc.)

Victory Markets, Inc. (VMI) and Victory Markets, LLC (LLC) initiated an adversary proceeding against the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division of the Department of Labor, challenging the Department's transfer of VMI's unemployment insurance tax experience rating to new owners following VMI's Chapter 11 reorganization. VMI argued this transfer violated its reorganization plan and negatively impacted funds available for creditors. The Department moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute involved non-debtor parties and state law, and was furthermore precluded by the Tax Injunction Act. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Chief Judge STEPHEN D. GERLING, granted the Department's motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under 'arising in,' 'arising under,' or 'related to' doctrines, as the matter concerned a state agency's application of state law against non-debtors with a remote connection to the bankruptcy estate. The court also emphasized the availability of a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy in state courts, which barred federal intervention.

BankruptcySubject Matter JurisdictionTax Injunction ActNew York Labor LawUnemployment Insurance TaxChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingState Tax DisputeNon-Debtor PartiesExperience Rating Transfer
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. 03-11-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2013

the Attorney General of Texas and the Commissioner of Insurance v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas, Texas Farmers Insurance Company, and Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning public-information requests made to the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) for rate-filing information submitted by a group of appellee insurers. The central issue was whether this information, declared "open to public inspection" by the Insurance Code, was subject to exceptions under the Public Information Act (PIA). The district court initially ruled that the PIA's exceptions applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of former section 2251.107 of the Insurance Code mandated public inspection without regard to the PIA's exceptions. The court emphasized plain-meaning statutory construction and dismissed arguments based on legislative history and constitutional challenges.

Statutory InterpretationPublic Information ActInsurance CodeOpen RecordsTrade SecretsRate FilingsTexas Department of InsuranceAppellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyTakings Clause
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Claim of Chee

The claimant was laid off in March 1999 and began receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In July 1999, the employer offered to rehire him to his previous position at the same hourly rate of $12.44. The claimant rejected this offer, leading the employer to contest his right to continued benefits. An administrative hearing and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that the claimant was entitled to continued benefits, citing Labor Law § 593 (2) (d). The Board found that the prevailing wage for similar positions in the locality was $14.88 per hour, exceeding the offered salary by more than 10%, which constituted good cause for rejecting the job offer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was rational and supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment benefitsjob refusalprevailing wagegood causeLabor Lawadministrative appealsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewreemploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1974

In re Claim of Di Lella

This case is an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which denied unemployment insurance benefits to "outside" liquor and wine salesmen. The claimants, members of their respective salesmen's unions, lost their employment when other unions (Teamsters and Distillery Workers) went on strike against their common employers, wholesale liquor and wine distributors. The employers ceased operations, instructing the salesmen not to report to work. The Board determined that the claimants lost their jobs due to an industrial controversy in the same "establishment" as the striking employees, as per Labor Law § 592(1). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that despite working remotely, the salesmen's operational ties to the employer's physical premises constituted employment within the same establishment.

Unemployment Insurance AppealIndustrial ControversyStrike Suspension of BenefitsSame Establishment TestLiquor SalesmenAppellate DivisionLabor Law § 592(1)Unemployment Benefits DenialPicket LinesSalesmen Employment
References
2
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Case No. 18-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2020

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Tasb Risk Management Fund, Transportation Insurance Company, Truck Insurance Exchange, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Phi Air Medical, LLC

This concurring opinion addresses whether the Texas Workers' Compensation Act is shielded from federal preemption by the McCarran–Ferguson Act. The core issue is whether the Texas Act, which dictates how insurance carriers pay claimants like air-ambulance services, constitutes the 'business of insurance.' Justice Bland argues that the Act was indeed enacted for regulating the business of insurance, particularly given Texas's reliance on private insurers for workers' compensation. Therefore, its provisions should be protected from federal encroachment, leading to the reversal of the court of appeals' judgment.

McCarran-Ferguson ActFederal PreemptionState Insurance RegulationTexas Workers' Compensation ActBusiness of InsuranceAir-ambulance ServicesInsurance CarriersPolicyholder RiskThird-Party BeneficiaryAntitrust Exemption
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1997

In re the Claim of Schembri

The claimant, a manager at a coffee shop restaurant, was discharged following a confrontation with her supervisor. The supervisor alleged the claimant became very upset and yelled at her in the presence of customers and later in the back room. A co-worker corroborated the supervisor's account. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant's conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's findings and noting that the claimant's denial of raising her voice presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsMisconductTermination of EmploymentSupervisor ConfrontationCredibility IssueWorkplace DisputeAppeal Board DecisionAdministrative LawEmployment LawManagerial Misconduct
References
2
Case No. 05-16-00875-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2018

Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, America First Insurance Company, the Netherlands Insurance Company, and America First Lloyds Insurance Company A.K.A. America First Insurance Company v. GLS Masonry, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by several insurance companies (Appellants) against GLS Masonry, Inc. (Appellee) after a take-nothing judgment in their suit to collect unpaid insurance premiums. The dispute centered on whether GLS's masonry workers were independent contractors or employees for premium calculation purposes, particularly for workers' compensation and general liability policies. The Appellants argued that GLS owed additional premiums due to audits reclassifying workers as employees and based on a lack of liability insurance for subcontractors. The trial court sided with GLS, finding that the insurance companies failed to establish the applicability of certain labor code provisions and did not sufficiently prove that GLS owed additional premiums, especially considering evidence that the workers were independent contractors and payments were made on policies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Insurance DisputeUnpaid PremiumsCommercial General LiabilityPremium AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationBreach of ContractTexas Appellate LawFactual Sufficiency ReviewSworn Account Claim
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 15,819 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