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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. 03-17-00703-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

Ken Bailey and Bradley Peterson v. Carter Smith, Executive Director Clayton Wolf, Wildlife Division Director Mitch Lockwood, Big Game Program Director And Texas Parks &Wildlife Department

This document presents a concurring and dissenting opinion from the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, authored by Justice Melissa Goodwin. The appeal stems from a dispute between deer breeders (Appellants Ken Bailey and Bradley Peterson) and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. Justice Goodwin concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the dismissal of Peterson's declaratory judgment and ultra vires claims due to lack of jurisdiction. However, she dissents from the majority's conclusion that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on Peterson's due process claims, arguing that he possesses a constitutionally protected property interest in his breeder deer. Justice Goodwin would reverse the grant of summary judgment for the Department and remand the issue of attorney's fees for reconsideration, asserting that the Department failed to demonstrate that its existing procedures adequately satisfy due process requirements.

Property RightsWild AnimalsDue ProcessCommon LawLegislative IntentState OwnershipWildlife RegulationChronic Wasting DiseaseSummary JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
73
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dove v. Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division

Marilyn Dove sued the Director of the State Employees Workers’ Compensation Division for total and permanent disability benefits following an alleged employment injury. Despite a jury finding she was injured, it concluded no disability resulted, awarding only $24 for medical costs. Dove appealed, arguing the Director's counsel repeatedly violated a motion in limine by questioning her about collateral benefits and prior claims of permanent incapacity. The appellate court agreed that the questions were prejudicial and incurable by jury instructions, leading to an improper verdict. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMotion in LimineEvidentiary ErrorCollateral Source RulePrejudicial MisconductMistrialCumulative ErrorAppellate ReviewTexas LawDisability Benefits
References
7
Case No. 03-94-00192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1995

Douglas T. DeWitt v. Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division

Douglas T. DeWitt sued the Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division, alleging bad faith in handling his worker's compensation claim and other torts, similar to duties imposed on private insurance carriers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Director, citing sovereign immunity and the statute of limitations. DeWitt appealed, arguing waiver of sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act and that his claim was not time-barred. The appellate court, relying on University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston v. York, held that governmental immunity was not waived for injuries resulting from the misuse of information, even if recorded in writing, thus precluding DeWitt's cause of action. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment without addressing the statute of limitations.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActWorkers' Compensation ClaimBad Faith Insurance PracticeMisuse of InformationTangible Personal PropertyGovernmental Immunity WaiverSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCerebral Hemorrhage
References
7
Case No. 03-90-271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1992

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division, State of Texas v. Jesse Mae Blaine

The Director of the State Employees Workers' Compensation Division (appellant) appealed an adverse judgment in a workers' compensation case involving Jessie Mae Blaine (appellee). Blaine, an employee of Austin State School, developed tuberculosis and subsequently peripheral neuropathy from her medication, leading to a fall and back injury. She claimed total and permanent incapacity. The Director sought a reduction in benefits due to Blaine's pre-existing conditions (arthritis, COPD, Hepatitis B). The jury found in Blaine's favor, a verdict affirmed by the trial court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, addressing complaints regarding jury charge wording, definitions of occupational disease, and the sufficiency of evidence concerning causation and incapacity.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseTuberculosisPeripheral NeuropathyArthritisJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidenceMedical CausationAggravationContribution
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 1,767 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