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

Nationwide Distribution Services, Inc. v. Robert Jones and Poly Trucking, Inc.

National Distribution Services, Inc. (NDS) appealed the denial of its special appearance, arguing that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and that NDS had not waived its right to contest jurisdiction. The appellate court found that NDS waived its special appearance by violating the due-order-of-hearing requirement of Rule 120a. NDS had filed motions to compel discovery and a motion for continuance, both relating to the merits of the case, and obtained rulings on them before its special appearance was heard. These actions were deemed inconsistent with NDS's challenge to the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying NDS's special appearance.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionWaiverDue Order of HearingRule 120aDiscovery MotionsMotion to CompelMotion for ContinuanceInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Quintas v. Pace University

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint against a university. The plaintiff had sought damages based on contract, tort, and retaliation theories after being denied a distinguished professorship. The court found these claims were time-barred, as they should have been brought under CPLR article 78, which has a four-month statute of limitations. Furthermore, the negligence claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law, and the retaliation claim lacked sufficient connection to protected conduct. The age discrimination claim also failed as the university's requirements were age-neutral and the denial was also based on the plaintiff's teaching performance. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's remaining arguments.

Employment LawAge DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissProfessorship DenialContract ClaimsTort ClaimsCPLR Article 78
References
2
Case No. W2012-00191-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2012

Tikita Jones v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Board & Shelby County Division of Health Services

Tikita Jones, a municipal employee, was terminated from her position with the Shelby County Division of Health Services for unauthorized access to her adult daughter's medical records. The termination was upheld by the Shelby County Civil Service Merit Board and subsequently affirmed by the Chancery Court. Jones appealed, claiming violations of due process rights and a lack of substantial evidence to support the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Jones received adequate notice of the charges and that substantial and material evidence supported the Board's conclusion that her actions constituted an impermissible access of patient information, beyond her job duties. The court specifically noted that accessing sensitive lab reports was outside her clerical specialist role and her testimony regarding authorization was inconsistent with her daughter's.

Employment terminationConfidentialityHIPAA violationMedical records accessDue processAdministrative lawJudicial reviewClerical specialistEmployee misconductPublic sector employment
References
26
Case No. 04-13-00558
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

Bruington Engineering, Ltd. v. Pedernal Energy, L.L.C.

This document contains two dissenting opinions from Justices Barnard and Martinez regarding the denial of Pedernal Energy, LLC’s motion for en banc reconsideration. Both justices argue that the majority panel decision misinterpreted Section 150.002(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which addresses the dismissal of complaints without a certificate of merit. They contend that the statute’s use of 'may' grants trial courts discretion to dismiss a case with or without prejudice, rather than mandating a dismissal with prejudice. The dissenting justices emphasize that the legislature intended to allow for discretion to prevent meritorious lawsuits from being dismissed on technical grounds, highlighting that the panel's interpretation renders other statutory provisions meaningless.

statutory interpretationjudicial discretiondismissal with prejudicedismissal without prejudicecertificate of meriten banc reconsiderationappellate procedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Codelegislative intentabuse of discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp Engineering v. Luis

This case involves an appeal by Sharp Engineering and Pra-deep Shah from the denial of their motion to dismiss a negligence suit. Appellees Sergio R. Luis and Judith Yanet Delgado, et al., sued the appellants alleging negligence in the design of a roof, but failed to file a statutorily required certificate of merit with their original petition. The appellate court, reviewing the statutory construction of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 150.002, held that a certificate of merit must be filed with the first-filed complaint. Since appellees only filed their certificate with an amended petition, they failed to comply. The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was deemed an abuse of discretion, leading to the reversal of the order and a remand for a determination of dismissal with or without prejudice.

Professional NegligenceCertificate of MeritStatutory ConstructionMotion to DismissTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionEngineering MalpracticeAppellate ReviewRemandPleadings
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witko v. State of New York

Claimants Richard and Sally Witko appealed the denial of their application to file a late notice of claim against the State of New York and the denial of their motion for reconsideration. Richard Witko was injured in a bicycle accident involving dogs, one of which belonged to a State Police Trooper. The Court of Claims initially denied the application due to weak factual allegations, lack of excuse for delay, insufficient notice to the State, and the availability of an alternative remedy. The motion for reconsideration, which included new deposition details, was also denied as it did not bolster the claim's merit. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of excuse, insufficient notice, the alternative remedy, and the claim's lack of apparent merit, especially after evidence suggested the State's dog was not involved in the actual collision.

Late Notice of ClaimCourt of Claims ActPersonal InjuryBicycle AccidentDog AttackState PoliceSovereign ImmunityNotice to StateAppearance of MeritMotion for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boakye-Yiadom v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's denial of three motions: leave to reargue/renew opposition to dismissal, leave to serve a late notice of claim, and leave to amend the complaint. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning the motion to reargue, citing non-appealability. It affirmed the denial of the motion to renew, finding the plaintiff failed to justify the delay in presenting new facts. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for a late notice of claim due to lack of timely service. Consequently, the denial of the motion to amend the complaint was also affirmed, as proposed amendments would be without merit given the untimely notice of claim.

AppealMotion PracticeReargumentRenewalLate Notice of ClaimAmendment of PleadingsCPLREducation LawGeneral Municipal LawProcedural Dismissal
References
11
Case No. 2016-263 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee, appealed an order denying its summary judgment motion and granting Allstate Insurance Company's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion but reversing the grant of the defendant's cross-motion. The court ruled that Allstate failed to establish timely mailing of its denial of claim forms, thus precluding its defense. However, the plaintiff also failed to prove that the claims were not timely denied or that the denials were without merit, leading to the proper denial of its summary judgment motion.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate TermInsurance DefenseDenial of ClaimTimely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAssignee ClaimCivil Court OrderAffidavit Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. M2003-00294-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2005

Linda Yvonne Bilyeu v. Glenn E. Bilyeu

This divorce action involves an appeal by the Husband, Glenn E. Bilyeu, from the Chancery Court's decision. He contested the denial of alimony, the denial of Rule 60 post-judgment relief, and the classification of his workers' compensation benefits as marital property. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the Chancery Court's decision on all points. The court found no merit in the Husband's arguments, upholding the denial of alimony due to his failure to seek alternative employment and affirming the marital property classification of the workers' compensation award given the lack of evidence to the contrary. The denial of Rule 60 relief was also upheld, as the Husband did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate misrepresentation by the Wife regarding her property interest.

DivorceAlimonyMarital PropertyWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPost-judgment ReliefRule 60.02Property ClassificationOccupational IllnessAppellate ReviewChancery Court
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,167 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