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

Carrizales v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales appealed an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which affirmed the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' finding of child neglect against him. This finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, effectively prohibiting his future employment with children. Carrizales initially sought judicial review in the district court, citing the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as the basis for his appeal, but the district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Carrizales introduced an argument for an inherent right to judicial review, claiming his constitutional liberty interest in employment was violated. However, the appellate court ruled that this constitutional argument was not preserved in the district court and therefore could not be considered on appeal. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carrizales's petition.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeChild NeglectTexas Family CodeAdministrative Procedure ActSubject-Matter JurisdictionLiberty InterestConstitutional ClaimWaiver of IssueAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 03-99-00422-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1999

Armando Carrizales v. Texas Department of Regulatory Services

Armando Carrizales sought judicial review of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order upholding a finding by the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services that he neglected a child. The finding led to Carrizales's name being placed in a central registry, potentially barring his future employment with children. In the district court, Carrizales argued for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which was denied. On appeal, Carrizales asserted an inherent right to judicial review based on a constitutionally protected liberty interest, but the Court of Appeals held that he failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was affirmed.

Judicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure ActChild NeglectLiberty InterestDue ProcessAppellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionWaiverPreservation of ErrorCentral Registry
References
15
Case No. 01-00-01245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Department of Protection and Regulatory Services v. Schutz, Ann Jeanette

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment. AnnJeanette and Mark Schutz sought a declaration that the definition of "neglect" in the Family Code was unconstitutionally vague as applied to AnnJeanette, and that she was not guilty of neglect after a foster child drowned in their pool. The district court ruled in their favor, but the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Schutzes failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before pursuing judicial review. The court also clarified the distinction between "foster home" and "agency foster home" under the Human Resources Code.

child neglectfoster caredeclaratory judgmentsubject-matter jurisdictionadministrative remediesexhaustion doctrinesovereign immunitystatutory constructiondue processTexas Family Code
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City Council v. Town Board

East-West Realty Corporation, owner of 37 acres in the Town of Colonie, sought to have its property, along with an additional 6 acres, annexed by the City of Watervliet to facilitate a senior citizen assisted-living development. The Town of Colonie denied the petition, citing non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and lack of overall public interest. The City of Watervliet, however, approved the petition and initiated a court proceeding to determine if the annexation was in the public interest, with East-West intervening as a petitioner. The Town of Colonie moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Watervliet failed to comply with SEQRA prior to approving the annexation. The court found that annexation constitutes an 'action' subject to SEQRA review, even for parcels less than 100 acres, and that such review must occur at the earliest opportunity. Concluding that no SEQRA compliance occurred before the joint hearing, the court granted the Town of Colonie's motion and dismissed the petition.

annexationSEQRAenvironmental reviewzoning restrictionspublic interestmunicipal lawType I actionunlisted actionCPLR 404General Municipal Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1984

Gotbaum v. Lewis

This case concerns a dispute over the regulatory authority of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance regarding employee welfare funds administered unilaterally by municipal unions but financed by the City of New York. Plaintiffs, trustees of these funds, sought a declaration that they were not bound by Insurance Law article III-A, citing decades of legislative intent and administrative practice that excluded unilaterally administered funds from its scope. Despite a history of failed legislative attempts to expand jurisdiction, the Superintendent of Insurance moved to compel registration. The court ultimately modified a prior order, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby declaring that the Insurance Department possesses regulatory jurisdiction over these funds under Insurance Law article III-A, § 37-a.

Employee welfare fundsRegulatory jurisdictionInsurance Law Article III-AUnilaterally administered fundsCollective bargainingMunicipal unionsLegislative intentStatutory interpretationAdministrative overreachSummary judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. ADJ476925 (MON 0355919)
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

IRMA GUERECA vs. LSG SKY CHEFS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award, finding the record insufficient regarding MPN notice compliance. The case is returned to the trial level to determine if the employer provided proper MPN notice, whether any failure constituted a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment, and if so, whether the applicant is entitled to self-procured treatment. Key factual issues to be developed include the date applicant stopped treating at Concentra and when MPN notice was provided, with a focus on statutory and regulatory compliance. The WCJ must issue a new decision after this record development.

MPNnotice requirementsself-procured medical treatmentneglect or refusalreasonable medical treatmentConcerta Clinicprimary treating physicianKnight v. United Parcel ServiceAppeals Board en bancLabor Code section 5705
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) filed suit against Atlas Van Lines, Inc. for violating regulations related to owner-operator payments and escrow funds, stemming from issues with its agent, Thomas Van & Storage, Inc., which subsequently declared bankruptcy. Atlas conceded liability for past regulatory breaches but argued against a general injunction, contending that the issues with the bankrupt agent were moot and that it had implemented a new compliance program. The Court, however, found that Atlas had a history of consistent non-compliance, indicating a significant risk of future violations. Consequently, the Court granted the ICC's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction against Atlas to prevent further violations of ICC regulations.

Interstate Commerce CommissionAtlas Van LinesSummary JudgmentPermanent InjunctionMotor CarrierOwner-OperatorLeasing RegulationsEscrow FundsRegulatory ComplianceBankruptcy
References
27
Case No. 528627
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Matter of Keller v. Cumberland Farms

Claimant Frederick W. Keller sought workers' compensation benefits, alleging he contracted bladder and kidney cancer due to carcinogen exposure as a diesel mechanic. The Workers' Compensation Board precluded the report of claimant's independent medical examiner, Lester Ploss, due to non-compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 137 and 12 NYCRR 300.2, specifically the failure to submit a letter from claimant's counsel and an intake sheet to the Board. Consequently, the Board found insufficient credible medical evidence of an occupational disease and disallowed the claim, also denying reconsideration. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, concurring that the preclusion of Ploss's report and testimony was proper given the lack of compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical Examiner ReportRegulatory ComplianceReport PreclusionBladder CancerKidney CancerDiesel MechanicCarcinogen ExposureAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becon Construction Co. v. Alonso

The case, a permissive appeal, addresses whether the exclusive remedy defense provided by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act applies on a worksite subject to a contractor-controlled insurance program. Appellants Becon Construction and Bechtel Equipment, subcontractors, sought summary judgment asserting this defense against common law injury claims from appellees, Jose Alonso et al., who were employees of other subcontractors (A & L Industrial and Empire Scaffold). Appellees argued non-compliance with Texas Department of Insurance regulations and that pre-existing master service agreements should control. The Court of Appeals, Beaumont, reversed the trial court's denial of appellants' summary judgment and the grant of appellees' no-evidence cross-motion. It held that the exclusive remedy defense applied to all tiers of subcontractors covered by the general workplace insurance plan, from which the employees had collected benefits, and that regulatory non-compliance did not strip the defense. The court rendered judgment that the employees take nothing on their claims against the appellants.

Texas Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseContractor-Controlled Insurance ProgramSummary JudgmentSubcontractor ImmunityWorkplace InjuryContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor Code
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 1,267 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