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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'ROURKE v. Smithsonian Institution Press

Kevin O'Rourke filed a copyright infringement action against the Smithsonian Institution Press and The Smithsonian Institution, alleging they infringed his book "Currier and Ives: The Irish in America" by publishing "Currier and Ives: America Imagined." The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) grants exclusive jurisdiction over copyright claims against the United States to the Court of Federal Claims. O'Rourke contended that the defendants were independent entities not falling under "the United States" for the statute's purposes. The Court, however, found that "the United States" in Section 1498(b) should be interpreted broadly, encompassing the Smithsonian Institution and its press, referencing previous rulings where the Smithsonian was considered part of the federal government. Consequently, the Court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, closing the case.

Copyright InfringementSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Copyright ActCourt of Federal ClaimsSmithsonian InstitutionUnited StatesSovereign ImmunityMotion to Dismiss28 U.S.C. § 1498(b)Tucker Act
References
5
Case No. 03-01-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

HEB Ministries, Inc. Southern Bible Institute And Hispanic Bible Institute/Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Commissioner Don W. Brown v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and Commissioner Don W. Brown/HEB Ministries, Inc.

HEB Ministries, Inc., operating Tyndale Theological Seminary, challenged the constitutionality of Texas Education Code provisions requiring private postsecondary institutions to obtain state certification or accreditation for granting degrees and using terms like "seminary." The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board counterclaimed for injunctions and administrative penalties. The district court found the degree-granting regulation constitutional but the "seminary" term regulation unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the constitutionality of the degree-granting regulation and upheld the $170,000 penalty. It reversed the district court's finding on the "seminary" term, declaring it constitutional, and reinstated a $3,000 penalty, remanding for a permanent injunction consistent with its opinion.

ConstitutionalityFirst AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseFree Speech ClauseTexas Education CodeHigher Education RegulationDegree-Granting AuthorityAccreditation StandardsReligious Educational Institutions
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2002

Finnigan v. Rochester Institute of Technology

The plaintiff, an employee of RADEC Corporation, was injured at a building owned by Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. Initially, a jury apportioned fault and awarded damages, but after reinstruction, RIT's fault was eliminated, leaving RADEC and the plaintiff responsible. Both parties moved for directed verdicts, with the court granting RIT's. On appeal, the higher court determined the lower court had erred in interpreting the jury's verdict concerning Labor Law § 241 (6) and Rule 23. Consequently, the appellate court denied RIT's motion for a directed verdict, granted RIT's alternative request for a new trial, and denied the plaintiff's motion, thereby granting a new trial on both liability and damages.

Labor LawNegligenceDirected VerdictNew TrialApportionment of FaultIndustrial CodeOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityJury Charge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seife v. National Institutes of Health

Plaintiff Charles Seife, acting pro se, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to obtain records concerning "special governmental employees" (SGEs) who serve on NIH advisory panels. Seife specifically requested documents from the ethics files of 44 NIH SGEs related to managing conflicts of interest, including "recusal lists" and "waiver determinations." NIH produced partially redacted documents, withholding information based on FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6, which protect confidential financial disclosure reports and personal privacy. The court granted Seife's motion in part, ordering NIH to release unredacted waiver determinations concerning SGEs' financial interests and relationships, but allowed redaction of identifying information about spouses or dependent children, and upheld the withholding of recusal lists. The decision balanced the SGEs' privacy interests against the public's interest in government transparency and accountability regarding potential conflicts of interest.

FOIANational Institutes of HealthSpecial Governmental EmployeesConflict of InterestRecusal ListsWaiver DeterminationsEthics in Government ActFinancial DisclosurePrivacy InterestsGovernment Transparency
References
35
Case No. 01-02-01101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2006

N.N. v. Institute for Rehabilitation & Research

N.N., as next friend of her daughter A.B., sued The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research (TIRR) for damages stemming from A.B.'s sexual assault while hospitalized. A.B., who had a brain injury and was severely impaired, was sexually assaulted by another patient. The jury found TIRR negligent and awarded damages for past and future mental anguish. The trial court initially granted a JNOV on future damages and suggested remittitur for past damages, leading to a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the JNOV, finding sufficient legal and factual evidence to support the $625,000 award for future mental anguish. The court also rejected TIRR's constitutional challenges to the appellate rules and its factual sufficiency arguments regarding negligence. The case was remanded for judgment to reinstate the jury's verdict for future mental anguish damages.

Sexual AssaultMedical MalpracticeNegligenceBrain InjuryMental Anguish DamagesFuture DamagesJudgment N.O.V.Factual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyConstitutional Challenge
References
44
Case No. 01-04-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

Marine Transport Corporation v. the Methodist Hospital, the Institute for Preventive Medicine/Methodist Healthcare Systems, the Methodist Hospital/Institute for Preventive Medicine Management, Inc. and Rashid Khan, M.D.

Marine Transport Corporation (Marine) appealed the dismissal of its claims against The Methodist Hospital and Dr. Rashid Khan. Marine's employee, Richard Guillory, a seaman, was certified fit for duty by the appellees despite medical issues and later died from an infection. Marine sought damages under the maritime doctrine of maintenance and cure, alleging negligence in the fitness-for-duty certification. The appellate court affirmed that while federal maritime law applied to Marine's claim, the underlying health care liability claims were governed by state law's former article 4590i, requiring expert reports. However, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Marine's motion for a 30-day extension to file these reports, as the attorney's failure was due to accident or mistake, not conscious indifference. Therefore, the judgment of dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Maritime LawMaintenance and CureHealth Care LiabilityMedical NegligenceExpert Report RequirementTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionAccident or MistakeSeaman InjuryFitness for Duty Certification
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2000

Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust v. Gerber Life Insurance

Plaintiff Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust (OHI) sued Gerber Life Insurance Company (Gerber), Island Group Administration, Inc. (IGA), and RMTS Associates, alleging Gerber refused to reimburse stop-loss claims and issue a letter of certification to a lender. OHI had established a self-insurance program, and Gerber issued an aggregate stop-loss (ASL) policy. OHI commenced the action on the day the ASL policy expired, before the attachment point for reimbursement could be calculated and before submitting proper documentation. The Supreme Court denied Gerber's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that OHI failed to demonstrate compliance with the ASL policy's reimbursement terms, lacked material facts to support its claims, and initiated the action prematurely. Both causes of action were dismissed against Gerber.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentAggregate Stop-Loss PolicyContract DisputeReimbursementPolicy TermsAppellate ReviewGood FaithDocumentation RequirementsAgency
References
3
Case No. 01-02-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID) v. Bates, Linda Koetter

Linda Koetter Bates, an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ), was injured in an accident with a TDCJ tractor while driving to work. After her workers' compensation claim was denied, Bates sued TDCJ under the Texas Tort Claims Act for negligence. TDCJ filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting Bates's exclusive remedy was under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and that she had not exhausted administrative remedies, arguing the 'access doctrine' applied. The trial court denied TDCJ's plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Bates's petition sufficiently stated a claim under the Tort Claims Act and that TDCJ's argument constituted an exclusive-remedy defense rather than a jurisdictional issue.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealAccess DoctrineNegligenceSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Court
References
8
Case No. 03-97-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

Continental Casualty Insurance Company v. Functional Restoration Associates Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics

Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Continental) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Functional Restoration Associates (FRA), Productive Rehabilitation Institute of Dallas for Ergonomics (PRIDE), and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission). Continental sought judicial review of a Commission decision holding it liable for medical costs for an injured employee, James Hood. The trial court had dismissed the suit, citing a lack of statutory jurisdiction for judicial review of Division of Medical Review (DMR) decisions. On appeal, Continental asserted both statutory and inherent bases for jurisdiction. The appellate court found no explicit or necessarily implied statutory right to judicial review of DMR decisions. However, it concluded that Continental possessed an inherent right to judicial review because the Commission's decision directly affected Continental's vested property interest in the money it was ordered to pay. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment of dismissal and remanded the cause for further proceedings, including a review of whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessVested Property RightsMedical Benefits DisputeAppellate JurisdictionTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSubstantial Evidence
References
28
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Showing 1-10 of 308 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