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. 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
Case No. 2016-198 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns a provider, Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C., seeking no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint based on the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and claims exceeding the fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term modified this order, finding that Allstate failed to provide sufficient proof of timely denial form mailing, thereby precluding its defenses regarding IMEs and the fee schedule. Consequently, Allstate's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, reversing that part of the lower court's decision. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, as the plaintiff also failed to establish their claims.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentindependent medical examinationstimely denialinsurance defenseappellate reviewmedical billingassignee rightsprocedural requirementsfee schedule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (the Board) and its director, Michele Henricks, after the Board commenced disciplinary proceedings against Esquire. The Board alleged that Esquire's long-term volume discount agreements for court reporting services violated regulations and statutes concerning professional conduct and prohibited contracts. Esquire sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the Board lacked the statutory authority to regulate such discounts. The district court had previously denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction. On appeal, Justice Pemberton, presiding over the Texas Court of Appeals, reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court determined that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction to initially resolve disciplinary complaints under Chapter 52 of the Government Code. Furthermore, Esquire's claims were deemed not ripe for judicial review, as they involved hypothetical factual scenarios requiring the agency's specialized expertise to interpret and apply broad statutory terms. Consequently, Esquire's suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawStatutory InterpretationExclusive JurisdictionRipeness DoctrinePlea to JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCourt Reporting FirmsVolume DiscountsProfessional Conduct
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1995

Miller v. Chater

Plaintiff initiated this action to seek review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision establishing June 1, 1992, as the onset date for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to alleged disability from mental retardation. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, advising denial of the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge found errors in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) assessment of the plaintiff's functional limitations, particularly regarding social domain, and noted the ALJ's failure to consider the retroactivity inference from the Zebley class action stipulation. District Judge Arcara reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and with no objections filed, adopted its findings. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was remanded to the Secretary for further reconsideration, emphasizing a misapplication of post-Zebley requirements for adjudicating children’s SSI benefits claims.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsMental RetardationChild Disability ClaimsAdministrative ReviewSocial Security ActAge-appropriate functioningMedical EvidenceFunctional LimitationsOnset Date
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Perales

The petitioner sought to expunge a 1976 child abuse report from the State Central Register, which alleged that her children were left bound and unsupervised, arguing it was irrelevant to her current child care employment. This challenge was initiated via a CPLR article 78 petition and transferred to the Appellate Division. An Administrative Law Judge had previously expunged two later reports but maintained the 1976 report. The court confirmed the respondents' determination, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the petitioner's serious lack of judgment in 1976 remained relevant to child care. Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's due process argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Child Abuse ReportState Central RegisterExpungementChild Care EmploymentAdministrative Law JudgeDue ProcessCPLR Article 78Social Services LawAppellate ReviewRehabilitation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2010

Lyons Partnership, L.P. v. D & L Amusement & Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiffs Lyons Partnership, L.P. and HIT Entertainment Inc. initiated a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit against D & L Amusement & Entertainment Inc., Razzle Kidazzle Inc., Linda Lippo, All in One Entertainment, Inc., and John R. Albuja. The defendants were accused of infringing on the intellectual property rights of popular children's characters, Barney® and Bob the Builder®, by using unauthorized counterfeit costumes for entertainment services. Due to the defendants' failure to respond, Magistrate Judge Marilyn Go issued a Report and Recommendation, finding them liable for various Lanham Act and Copyright Act violations. Senior District Judge Sterling B. Johnson subsequently adopted this report in its entirety. As a result, a permanent injunction was granted against the defendants, and they were ordered to pay statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for their willful infringement.

Intellectual PropertyCopyright InfringementTrademark InfringementDefault JudgmentLanham ActStatutory DamagesPermanent InjunctionAttorneys' FeesChildren's CharactersCounterfeit Goods
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2015

Local Union No. 40 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Car-Win Construction Inc.

The plaintiffs, several local unions and related benefit funds, initiated a lawsuit against Car-Win Construction, Inc. and CRV Precast Construction, LLC, alleging violations of a collective bargaining agreement and failure to contribute to benefit funds. Following the defendants' consistent non-compliance with discovery orders and failure to produce financial records, the plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger issued a Report and Recommendation, advising that the default judgment be granted, a post-default inquest for damages be conducted, and an audit of the defendants' financial records for specific periods be ordered. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain subsequently adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, finding no clear error. The court also approved the plaintiffs' application for reasonable attorneys' fees incurred due to the defendants' dilatory tactics in discovery.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsERISACollective Bargaining AgreementBenefit Fund ContributionsAlter-Ego LiabilityFinancial AuditWage ViolationsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 37Judicial Discretion
References
75
Case No. SA-99-CA-880-FB
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2001

Top Rank, Inc. v. Gutierrez

This case involves consolidated actions concerning alleged unauthorized broadcasts of championship boxing matches by defendant Armando Gutierrez at his commercial establishment, Armando's Bar-B-Q Inn, in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605. Plaintiffs Top Rank, J & J, and Prostar initiated the lawsuits. Gutierrez, in turn, filed third-party claims against Paragon Communications, Inc. d/b/a Time Warner Cable (AOL/Time Warner), alleging breach of contract, breach of a third-party beneficiary contract, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The court reviewed objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on cross-motions for summary judgment, which addressed the liability of Gutierrez under federal law and the contractual/DTPA claims against AOL/Time Warner. The Senior District Judge accepted the Report and Recommendation, overruling Time Warner Cable's objections.

Summary JudgmentObjectionsReport and RecommendationMagistrate JudgeDistrict JudgeCable TelevisionCopyright InfringementFederal Communications ActWire CommunicationRadio Communication
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 14,539 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