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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. 14-04-00819-CV; 14-04-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

in Re: Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.

Relators, Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd., and Dealer Computer Services, Inc., filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motion to compel arbitration against Hillcrest Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The dispute arose from two contracts between DCS and Hillcrest containing arbitration provisions. Hillcrest argued the provisions were unconscionable due to fraudulent inducement, a Michigan forum selection clause, limited remedies, a shortened statute of limitations, and potential prohibitive arbitration costs. The appellate court found that Hillcrest failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-signatories, UCCH and UCC, could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel because Hillcrest's allegations involved substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatories and the signatory. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusInterlocutory AppealUnconscionabilityForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelNon-SignatoriesContract Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. M & M Contracting & Consulting

The plaintiffs, a group of Mason Tenders District Council Funds and associated entities, along with the Union and its managers, sued M & M Contracting & Consulting and its president, Michael T. Moscato, Jr. The suit, brought under ERISA and the Taft-Hartley Act, sought to compel defendants to fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations regarding monetary contributions, reports, dues checkoffs, and NYLPAC contributions. Following the defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered against them. The defendants subsequently moved to vacate this judgment, citing excusable neglect due to their attorney's negligence, a meritorious defense, and a lack of personal jurisdiction over Moscato. The District Court denied the defendants' motion, concluding that their default was willful and dilatory, their defense lacked merit, and personal jurisdiction over Moscato was properly established according to N.Y.C.P.L.R.

Default JudgmentMotion to VacateExcusable NeglectAttorney MalpracticeMeritorious DefensePersonal JurisdictionERISATaft-Hartley ActEmployee BenefitsDues Checkoff
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09339 [178 AD3d 1320]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2019

WSA Group, PE-PC v. DKI Eng'g & Consulting USA PC

WSA Group, PE-PC, an appellant-respondent, sued DKI Engineering & Consulting USA PC, a respondent-appellant, for negligent supervision and breach of contract arising from a subcontract to inspect state bridges. The dispute stemmed from a defendant's employee falsifying an inspection report, leading to costs for the plaintiff that the defendant refused to indemnify. The Supreme Court partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the negligent supervision and part of the breach of contract claims time-barred under a three-year professional malpractice statute of limitations. However, it allowed the contractual indemnification claim related to reimbursement to DOT under a six-year breach of contract limitation. The Appellate Division affirmed that the malpractice-related claims were time-barred, accruing upon the completion of the contract in May 2014. Crucially, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for counsel fees and investigation costs, finding that this aspect of the indemnification claim was not subject to the three-year malpractice limitation and fell within the broad scope of the contractual indemnification agreement.

Professional MalpracticeBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsIndemnification ClauseNegligent SupervisionSubcontract AgreementEngineering ServicesAccrual of ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2004

Claim of Stoudenmyre v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a personal care aide, sustained a foot injury and her workers' compensation claim was established. Subsequently, an independent medical examination (IME) report was requested to address permanency. Claimant moved to preclude the IME report, arguing it was improperly mailed by Brookside Consultants, Inc., an IME services company, instead of the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the motion, which the Board affirmed. This Court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that properly registered IME services companies are authorized to perform administrative functions like mailing reports, thereby substantially complying with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, as established in Matter of Clark v Siara Mgt., Inc.

IME reportmailing proceduresWorkers' Compensation Lawadministrative functionspermanency of injuryindependent medical examinationmedical reportsreport submissionappellate reviewBoard affirmation
References
1
Case No. 05-18-00394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2019

Quality Metrics Partners, LLC, Clearview Diagnostics, LLC, CGK Consulting, LLC, CGK Medical Management, LLC, CGK Medical Ventures, LLC, Brodie Flanders, Michael Morales, Michael Knall, Anthony Kim, and Christopher R. Peyton v. Greg Blasingame Capricia Larson Gabby Consulting, LLC And DX Power Moves Consulting, LLC

Appellants challenged the trial court’s denial of their consolidated motions to compel arbitration. The dispute involves a series of contractual relationships, including a Representative Marketing Agreement, an alleged oral contract, and a Distribution Agreement containing an arbitration provision. The Court determined that QMP and Clearview are intended third-party beneficiaries of the Distribution Agreement, extending the arbitration clause's benefits to their agents. Consequently, all direct claims against the QMP Appellants, as well as their related tort claims, fall within the broad scope of the arbitration provision. The Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for all disputes between the parties to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeThird-Party BeneficiaryNon-Signatory ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationTort ClaimsIndependent ContractorMarketing Services
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 6,111 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