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. Nos. 2-80-127 and 2-80-129 (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1985

Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated actions. No. 2-80-127 concerns civil rights counterclaims brought by Jesus Moya against seventeen growers and state officials following the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) that curtailed union organizing activities of the Texas Farm Workers Union (TFWU) in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Moya alleged deprivation of First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. No. 2-80-129 is a class action, originally filed by TFWU and TRLA, challenging the constitutionality of several Texas picketing statutes. The court found that the growers and state officials acted under color of state law, depriving Moya of his First Amendment rights due to the unconstitutional ex parte TRO procedure and the overly broad minority picketing provisions. Moya was awarded $500 in compensatory damages. The court also declared multiple sections of the Texas picketing statutes (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5154d, 5154f, and 5154g) unconstitutional. TRLA was denied standing for the constitutional challenges, but Delia Gamez Prince was granted standing. Claims for recovery against the TRO bond were denied.

Workers' RightsFirst AmendmentPicketingTemporary Restraining OrderConstitutional LawCivil Rights Act of 1871Labor DisputesOverbreadth DoctrineState StatutesJudicial Immunity
References
0
Case No. 01-16-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Adan G. Adame v. Glendale Optical

The case involves 106 sandblasters appealing the dismissal of their silica exposure claims. In 2005, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 90 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, creating a Silica multidistrict litigation (MDL) pretrial docket, establishing procedures for claims to advance to trial upon submission of compliant medical reports. The statute was amended in 2013 to allow dismissal without prejudice of pre-2005 claims if claimants failed to file qualifying medical reports by a specified deadline. The sandblasters filed their medical reports in 2013, but many were prepared before the 2005 statute specifying report content. The MDL Court sustained objections to almost all medical reports, dismissing all 106 claims without prejudice to refiling. The sandblasters appealed, arguing Chapter 90 is unconstitutional due to vagueness and retroactive application. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, overruling the sandblasters' constitutional challenges. It found that the statute's reference to the Code of Federal Regulations for impairment determination was not unconstitutionally vague, nor were the requirements for detailed medical and occupational histories. The court also rejected the argument that not specifying the AMA Guides edition caused vagueness, noting the MDL Court had clarified the applicable edition. The court further dismissed the challenge regarding specific x-ray findings for lung abnormalities, pointing to a 'safety valve' provision for atypical cases. Finally, the court held that granting the MDL Court authority to evaluate medical report sufficiency does not render the statute vague, aligning with established judicial roles in assessing expert evidence. The court concluded that the 2013 amendment adding dismissal procedures was not an unconstitutional retroactive law, as claimants had no vested right to indefinite litigation without providing reliable medical evidence.

Silica ExposureMultidistrict LitigationConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness ChallengeRetroactive LawMedical ReportsImpairment RatingOccupational DiseasePulmonary Impairment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randstad North America, L.P. v. Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-6-238, which governs temporary disability benefits. The employer, Randstad North America, L.P., challenged the statute after being ordered to pay benefits to an employee, Erica Doud, arguing it violated procedural due process by delaying meaningful judicial review. The trial court agreed, declaring the statute unconstitutional. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, citing its recent ruling in *Tyson Foods v. Tennessee Department of Labor*. The court concluded that the statute provides adequate procedural due process through a *de novo* judicial hearing and the possibility of a full refund from the Second Injury Fund for any wrongfully paid benefits.

Temporary disability benefitsWorkers' compensationProcedural due processStatute constitutionalityAdministrative appealJudicial reviewExhaustion of administrative remediesSecond Injury FundWage statementLight-duty work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoesl v. Kearns

Petitioner, a police officer and president of the Garden City Police Benevolent Association, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking a judgment to prevent the Chief of the Garden City Police Department from allowing "Special Police Officers" to drive departmental vehicles with police markings. Petitioner contended this practice violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 396(2), which restricts such operation to members or employees of a duly organized police department. The respondent cross-moved for dismissal, citing various procedural grounds including the Statute of Limitations. The court treated the proceeding as one in the nature of mandamus, denied the dismissal on procedural and Statute of Limitations grounds, and addressed the merits. The court found that "Special Police Officers," despite serving without remuneration, are considered "members" or "employees" under relevant statutes and departmental rules, and their use of marked departmental vehicles for official business is not prohibited by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 396(2). Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

CPLR Article 78MandamusProhibition WritPolice DepartmentSpecial Police OfficersVehicle OperationStatutory InterpretationVillage LawEmployment StatusGovernmental Discretion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. No. 07-87-0137-CR
Regular Panel Decision

Grimes v. State

Judge Baird dissents from the majority's decision regarding the retroactive application of Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 44.29(b). He argues that the Texas Constitution's Article I, Section 16, which prohibits 'retroactive law,' is broader than the federal ex post facto clause and applies to criminal cases, not just civil matters. Baird contends that the retroactive application of Article 44.29(b) unconstitutionally deprives the appellant of a vested right to a new trial for errors in the punishment phase, a right the appellant likely relied upon for trial strategy. He also disputes the majority's assertion that the retroactive law prohibition does not apply to statutes merely affecting procedural matters, arguing that a procedural label does not immunize a law from scrutiny if it affects substantial rights. Furthermore, Baird states that Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 311.022 mandates prospective operation unless a statute is expressly made retrospective, which is not the case for Article 44.29(b).

Ex post factoRetroactive lawTexas Constitution Article I Section 16Criminal procedurePunishment phaseVested rightsTrial strategyStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewJudicial dissent
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. State

This opinion, authored by Chief Justice Harbison, concurs that disability for a scheduled injury is based on loss of use rather than earning capacity. However, it dissents on the grounds that the workers' compensation claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employee sustained a wrist fracture, received medical treatment, and wore a cast for weeks, yet waited twenty years to file a claim for permanent disability. The Chief Justice argues that the employee knew or should have known of a work-related injury and disability, even without precise information, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations should apply from the date of injury or last medical payment. The opinion references Taylor v. Clayton Mobile Homes, Inc. and Jones v. Home Indemnity Co. to support the argument against extending the statute of limitations for such a long period, especially when the injury was apparent from the beginning.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsScheduled InjuryPermanent DisabilityWrist FractureLatent InjuryKnowledge of InjuryMedical ExpensesTimeliness of ClaimJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. ADJ5774907
Regular
Jan 15, 2014

ROBERT PORTER vs. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, overturning a prior order that dismissed the case from the trial calendar. The defendant seeks to litigate the statute of limitations as a threshold issue, arguing it was improperly denied. The Board found that statute of limitations is a threshold issue that can be bifurcated and that the prior denial of a dismissal petition was procedural, not on the merits. The case is returned to the trial level for proceedings on the statute of limitations.

Petition for RemovalStatute of LimitationsJurisdictionRes JudicataThreshold IssueLabor Code Section 5405Affirmative DefenseBifurcationDeclaration of ReadinessOff Calendar
References
3
Case No. ADJ4612779 (RDG 0113043), ADJ1750033 (RDG 0129403), ADJ4527180 (RDG 0129951)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

JUAN VILLALOBOS vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves appeals regarding the statute of limitations for applicant Juan Villalobos's workers' compensation claims against Coca Cola Bottling Company. The Board affirmed the lower judge's decision that claims ADJ4527180 and ADJ1750033 were not barred by the statute of limitations. This was based on the employer's failure to provide proper notice of potential benefits, which tolled the statute, and the employer's inability to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his rights. The Board found the employer's amended petitions for reconsideration procedurally acceptable, but ultimately affirmed the original findings on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsCumulative InjuryPetition to StrikeVerified PetitionActual KnowledgeLabor Code Section 5401(a)Tolling
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,450 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