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. 03-19-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2021

Madeleine Connor v. Douglas Hooks

Madeleine Connor appealed an order from the 201st District Court of Travis County, which declared her a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court found that Connor had previously been declared a vexatious litigant by a federal court in a case based on substantially similar facts and that her nonsuit with prejudice in the present Rule 202 petition confirmed no reasonable probability of her prevailing. Connor argued that Chapter 11 does not apply to Rule 202 proceedings, that the trial court lost jurisdiction after her nonsuit, and challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the vexatious litigant declaration and rejecting Connor's jurisdictional and constitutional arguments.

Vexatious LitigantCivil ProcedureAppealJurisdictionNonsuit with PrejudiceFirst AmendmentRight to PetitionConstitutional LawTexas Court of AppealsRule 202 Petition
References
44
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07648 [189 AD3d 1870]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Connors v. Yonkers Contr. Co.

William Connors, the claimant, suffered work-related injuries in 2006. In 2017, his employer and its carrier, Yonkers Contracting Company, requested the WCLJ to direct Connors to be weaned from opioid medications, but this was denied. The carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application was denied for being filed on an outdated RB-89 form, violating 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the application due to the carrier's non-compliance with the prescribed formatting requirements for Board review.

Workers' CompensationOpioid WeaningAdministrative ReviewRB-89 FormProcedural ComplianceBoard Review ApplicationForm RequirementsAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentWCLJ Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connor v. Ulrich

Harold J. Connor ("Connor") filed a Section 1983 action against Nassau County, Officer Henry A. Ulrich, and Sergeant John O’Keefe, alleging constitutional violations and state law claims. A jury found in favor of Connor on his excessive force claim against Ulrich, awarding him over $210,000 in damages. Connor sought attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and an amendment to the judgment for prejudgment interest. The Court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, granted Connor's application for attorney's fees, albeit at reduced hourly rates and with a 10% lodestar reduction due to partial success. The Court also granted prejudgment interest on $43,000 for past medical expenses and lost earnings, but denied expert witness fees and prejudgment interest on non-economic damages.

Section 1983Excessive ForceAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestCivil RightsPolice MisconductDamagesCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesLodestar Method
References
19
Case No. 03-21-00159-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2021

in Re David O'Connor

Relator David O’Connor sought mandamus relief from a temporary order compelling him to pay $4,205 in attorney’s fees to Trish Ho in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). The trial court initially denied Ho's request for interim attorney's fees under Texas Family Code Section 105.001 but later ordered O'Connor to pay fees for "good cause." The Court of Appeals found no evidence presented by Ho demonstrating that the fees were necessary for the child's safety and welfare, as required by Section 105.001. The court also rejected the argument that the fees were sanctions or awarded under inherent judicial authority. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate the portion of its order compelling attorney’s fee payment.

MandamusAttorney's FeesSAPCRFamily LawTemporary OrderAbuse of DiscretionInterim FeesTexas Family CodeSanctionsPrevailing Party
References
6
Case No. ADJ6998138
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

WAI CHIU LI vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Los Angeles' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board upheld its prior decision to increase applicant Wai Chiu Li's permanent disability rating from 15% to 36% for a left forearm injury. This increase was based on the agreed medical examiner's use of clinical judgment to incorporate grip strength loss, consistent with the AMA Guides. The Board emphasized that physician judgment is crucial in accurately assessing impairment according to the Guides.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationAmerican Medical Association GuidesAMA GuidesAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEGrip Strength
References
1
Case No. ADJ7106903
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

DAVID CONNOR vs. RESTAURANTS TO YOU/CAFÉ RUNNER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This order transfers venue for Case No. ADJ7106903, involving David Connor and Restaurants To You/Café Runner, from the San Luis Obispo District Office to the Santa Barbara Satellite Office. The transfer is necessitated by both parties exercising their challenges under Appeals Board Rule 10453, leaving no available judges in San Luis Obispo. The Presiding Judge in Santa Barbara will schedule the matter for trial upon receipt.

Venue transferAppeals Board rule 10453Challenge of judgePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeSanta Barbara Satellite OfficeSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSetting for trialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRestaurants to YouCafe Runner
References
1
Case No. 07-22-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2023

Michael R. Keenan and Ramona L. Keenan v. Thomas Samuel Robin, Mary Margot Connor, Dustin Wayne Lubbock, Meredith C. Lubbock, and Lazy LR Cattle Company LLC

The Keenans, appellants, sued the appellees for torts and other relief stemming from real property disputes, including allegations that appellees obstructed public streets, leading to Michael Keenan's arrest. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment regarding the civil rights violation, malicious prosecution, and trespass claims due to a lack of evidence presented by the appellants. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning the declaratory relief requested by the appellants regarding their easement rights and the denial of a temporary injunction, finding unresolved factual issues. The case was thus affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Real Property DisputeSummary JudgmentMalicious ProsecutionTrespassCivil Rights ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentEasement RightsPublic Right of WayTexas Court of AppealsRemand for Factual Determination
References
31
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 13-24-00035-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2024

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 278, Eduardo Rodriguez, Esteban J. Cavazos, Jerry Castillo, David L. Mays Jr., Avery Santos, Andrew Sitterly Jr., Miguel F. Carranco, Michael De La Cruz, Hector Carrillo, David Roberts, Ronnie Flores, Connor Hamilton, Israel Lopez, Chris Hernandez, Christian Sanchez, and Jose A. Martinez v. Corpus Christi Independent School District

This case concerns an appeal by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 278, and several individual workers (Appellants) against the Corpus Christi Independent School District and its Board of Trustees (Appellees). Appellants challenged the Appellees' prevailing wage rate determination, arguing it violated Chapter 2258 of the Texas Government Code. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, concluding that the individual workers had taxpayer standing, but finding a fact issue existed as to whether the Board of Trustees' wage rate survey complied with statutory requirements, specifically regarding its geographical scope and reliance on outsourced data.

Workers' RightsPrevailing WageGovernment CodeUltra ViresSummary JudgmentStandingTaxpayer StandingPolitical SubdivisionPublic WorksTexas Law
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Edson

The plaintiffs appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The first order, dated January 5, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland, dismissing the complaint against them regarding claims of legal and medical malpractice. The second order, dated January 23, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendant Elizabeth O’Connor, dismissing the complaint against her for legal malpractice. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that Edson and the County were immune from liability under Social Services Law § 419 for reporting suspected child abuse and removing a child, and that O’Connor was not negligent in her legal services.

Legal MalpracticeMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentChild Abuse ReportingSocial Services LawImmunityMandated ReportersAppellate ReviewGood FaithNegligence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 37 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