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

Hefner v. Grievance Committee for District 1-A

Hefner appealed the dismissal of his suit to set aside a private reprimand issued by the District 1-A Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas. The trial court dismissed the suit, asserting a lack of jurisdiction because Hefner did not reside in Dallas County, as per the statute. The appellate court determined that the statutory requirement to file suit in the county of residence was a matter of venue, not jurisdiction. Due to the Grievance Committee's failure to properly challenge venue according to Rule 86 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the improper venue was waived. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for a trial on the merits of Hefner's reprimand.

VenueJurisdictionWaiverPrivate ReprimandState Bar of TexasTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTrial Court ErrorReversalRemandAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rattikin Title Co. v. Grievance Committee of State Bar of Texas

The Rattikin Title Company appealed a temporary injunction that barred it from preparing legal instruments or providing legal advice in transactions where it was not a direct party or agent. The Grievance Committee of the State Bar of Texas initiated the injunction, asserting that these activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, upholding the trial court's finding that the title company's actions, even if inadvertent due to intertwined operations with a law firm, were illegal under Texas law. The court reiterated that the 'practice of law' includes conveyancing and advising on legal instruments for consideration, and such acts by a corporation are enjoinable. The decision emphasized that the preservation of status quo in injunction cases involving law violations means ceasing the unlawful acts. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in not enjoining the title company from certain actions for mortgage loan companies, classifying it as a novel legal question.

Unauthorized Practice of LawTemporary InjunctionTitle InsuranceLegal InstrumentsCorporate Practice of LawAttorney-Client RelationshipGrievance CommitteeState BarTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Carey & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves cross-appeals from an order of Special Term concerning the arbitration of discharge grievances in Buffalo and furlough grievances in Sharon under a collective bargaining agreement. The Special Term had denied arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances, which the appellate court found to be a misconception of the court's role in arbitration. The appellate court emphasized that only the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and a dispute thereunder should be considered, leaving matters of law and fact to the arbitrators. The court also deemed the question of public policy overriding arbitration rules premature. Regarding the Sharon furlough claims, the Special Term's decision to compel arbitration was affirmed, with the appellate court rejecting claims of Federal preemption. The final order was modified to grant the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration for the Buffalo discharge grievances and affirmed in all other respects.

ArbitrationCollective BargainingLabor DisputeDischarge GrievancesFurlough GrievancesCross-AppealSpecial Term OrderPublic PolicyFederal PreemptionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carey v. General Electric Company

This case involves a motion by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers (Union) to compel General Electric Company (Company) to arbitrate twelve grievances. The District Court, presided over by Judge Palmieri, examined questions of governing law, procedural arbitrability, substantive arbitrability, and the effect of NLRB jurisdiction. The court applied federal labor law, resolving doubts in favor of arbitration, and found most grievances arbitrable. However, arbitration for National Docket No. 4557 was denied because the Union's claim was based on an unlawful contract provision that discouraged membership in other unions.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureProcedural ArbitrabilitySubstantive ArbitrabilityFederal Labor LawNLRB JurisdictionSeniority RightsWage DisputesJob Classification
References
39
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07843 [192 AD3d 25]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Matter of Hackett

Mark J. Hackett, Jr., a suspended attorney, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District. He neglected a client's workers' compensation matter, failing to advise her properly regarding CMS debt and subsequently not responding to her inquiries. Hackett also failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation and defaulted in the disciplinary proceedings. The court suspended him from the practice of law for two years, citing harm to the client and disregard for the disciplinary process.

Attorney misconductprofessional ethicsneglect of client matterfailure to cooperatedisciplinary actionattorney suspensionWorkers' CompensationCMS debtRules of Professional Conductdefault judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brynien v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

This case is an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed petitioner’s applications to review denials of out-of-title work grievances. The petitioner, representing five state employees at the Office of Mental Health (OMH), alleged that employees were improperly assigned duties of a Treatment Team Leader, a higher-grade position, violating their collective bargaining agreement and Civil Service Law § 61 (2). OMH and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) denied the grievances, finding the duties appropriate to the employees' titles. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that GOER's determination was rational. The court found that the assigned duties were a reasonable extension of the employees' in-title duties and that the employees did not meet the minimum requirements for the higher-grade Treatment Team Leader position.

Out-of-title workGrievanceCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee ClassificationJob DutiesSupervisory DutiesRational Basis ReviewAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ciervo

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts brought a charge of professional misconduct against respondent Ralph E. Ciervo for failing to cooperate with investigations regarding complaints from Herbert S. Gulston and Julie Medina. A Special Referee sustained the charge, and the Grievance Committee moved to confirm the report. The respondent admitted to the non-cooperation, citing personal difficulties including job loss, recession impact on his practice, and severe injuries from accidents leading to depression and impaired judgment due to pain medication. The Court granted the motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report and suspended the respondent from the practice of law for one year, with conditions for reinstatement including medical reports on his physical and mental health.

Professional misconductAttorney suspensionGrievance CommitteeFailure to cooperateRules of Professional ConductMitigationMedical conditionMental healthReinstatement conditionsDisciplinary action
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hygiene Industries v. Plastic, Metal, Novelty & Allied Workers' Union Local 132-98

Hygiene Industries sought to prevent Plastic, Metal, Novelty and Allied Workers’ Union, Local 132-98, I.L.G.W.U. from arbitrating a grievance concerning the proposed closure of two plants in Brooklyn, New York. Hygiene argued the dispute was not arbitrable because the collective bargaining and settlement agreements might expire before the plant closings. The Union contended that the settlement agreement’s duration was tied to Hygiene’s operations in Sardis, Mississippi, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered the dispute. The court emphasized the strong federal policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes. Ultimately, the motion to enjoin arbitration was denied, as the court found the expiration date of the Settlement Agreement ambiguous and a matter for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide.

ArbitrationLabor LawCollective BargainingPlant ClosureInjunctionGrievance ProcedureContract DurationFederal PreemptionJudicial DeferenceArbitrability
References
9
Case No. 01-06-00490-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2008

the University of Houston v. Stephen Barth

Stephen Barth, a tenured professor at the University of Houston, reported his dean for questionable accounting practices, mishandling funds, and unauthorized contracts. Barth then faced retaliatory actions, including a marginal rating in his evaluation, denial of travel funds, and withdrawal of support for his symposium, leading to its cancellation. Barth filed grievances, then sued the University under the Texas Whistleblower Act. The trial court found in favor of Barth, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the University challenged the trial court's jurisdiction due to untimely grievances and the legal sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court found the August 17, 2000 grievance timely but the March 10, 2000 grievance untimely. It affirmed the jury's finding on causation for the timely grievance due to disparate treatment compared to a similarly situated colleague. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, dismissing claims related to the untimely grievance and allowing a new trial for claims related to the timely grievance.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeGrievance ProcedureTimeliness of GrievanceSubject Matter JurisdictionCausationDisparate TreatmentEmployment LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04454 [219 AD3d 22]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2023

Matter of Afra

Attorney Sam Afra faced four charges of professional misconduct, primarily involving escrow-related issues. The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District filed a petition alleging misappropriation of funds, maintenance of negative escrow account balances, and payment of personal/business expenses from the escrow account. A Special Referee sustained all four charges. The Court considered mitigating factors like personal hardships and remedial actions, but also aggravating factors such as repeated negative balances and unauthorized withdrawals. Ultimately, the Court ordered Sam Afra's suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months, commencing September 29, 2023.

Professional MisconductEscrow Account ViolationsMisappropriation of FundsAttorney SuspensionFiduciary DutyRules of Professional ConductDisciplinary ActionGrievance CommitteeEthical ViolationFinancial Mismanagement
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 418 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