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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linger v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Claimant sustained permanent partial disabilities from two 1977 accidents and one 1980 accident, leading to separate awards from different employers and their respective insurance carriers. Initially, the claimant received concurrent benefits exceeding the statutory maximum rate. Upon discovering these concurrent payments, a joint hearing was held. An Administrative Law Judge apportioned the award, which was subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, stating that concurrent awards exceeding the statutory maximum for a permanent partial disability were impermissible. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for a per-accident application of the statutory maximum. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law establishes an overall maximum rate for permanent partial disability regardless of the number of accidents or employments.

Permanent Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory MaximumApportionmentMultiple AccidentsWage LossJudicial PrecedentAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carriers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tucker

The claimant, a licensed practical nurse concurrently employed at Woodhull Medical Center (part of New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation) and Community Hospital, sustained an injury at Woodhull. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a permanent partial disability and calculated benefits based on combined average weekly wages from both employments, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the City's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, reasoning that the City's liability for lost wages would not have been greater under prior law, as the claimant would have been entitled to the statutory maximum benefit irrespective of concurrent employment. The City appealed, arguing that all benefits received resulted from the increase in average weekly wages due to concurrent employments, thus entitling them to full reimbursement. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's interpretation which aligns with the legislative intent of section 14 (6) to prevent employers from being liable for greater benefits due to the amendment, and to provide compensation for lost wages from full-time employment despite injury in a lower-paying job. The court also noted the Board's role as the drafter and original proponent of the legislation, entitling its interpretation to judicial deference.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageSpecial Disability FundReimbursementStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewJudicial Deference
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,084 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