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. E2000-02748-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

Ricky McElhaney v. Howard Barnwell

Plaintiff Ricky W. McElhaney filed a petition in 1998 to disbar his former attorney, Howard B. Barnwell, under a Tennessee statutory scheme. The statutory scheme was repealed in March 2000, and the Trial Court dismissed the petition, holding it lacked jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed, arguing the repeal should not be applied retrospectively, citing the Tennessee Constitution. The Court of Appeals held that the public act repealing the statute was not solely remedial or procedural and thus must operate prospectively, aligning with Tenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-101 which protects pending proceedings. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the petition, and the case is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the pre-repeal procedure.

DisbarmentAttorney MisconductStatutory RepealRetrospective LawJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureTennessee ConstitutionLegal EthicsProcedural LawRemedial Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mega Child Care, Inc. v. Texas Department of Protective & Regulatory Services

Justice Jennings dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that Mega Child Care, Inc. lacks a statutory right to judicial review of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services' (TDPRS) decision to revoke its child-care license. The dissent highlights that the Human Resources Code no longer provides for judicial review in such cases, having been amended in 1997 to repeal relevant sections. It also states that the Administrative Code sections cited by Mega do not confer a right to judicial review, and one such section has been repealed. Furthermore, Justice Jennings clarifies that Government Code section 2001.171 is merely procedural and does not establish subject matter jurisdiction for judicial review without specific statutory authorization. Finally, the dissent concludes that Mega waived any constitutional right to judicial review by failing to raise it in the trial court. Therefore, Justice Jennings would affirm the district court's decision to grant TDPRS's plea to the jurisdiction and dismiss Mega's suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewChild Care LicenseLicense RevocationStatutory InterpretationGovernment CodeHuman Resources CodeTravis CountyDissenting OpinionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. ADJ3871921 (VNO 0465854) ADJ1014317 (VNO 0465855) ADJ904688 (VNO 0385116)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

YOLANDA CASANOVA vs. NORCO DELIVERY SERVICES, CAMBRIDGE PASADENA, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS FRESNO, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION in liquidation and administered through BROADSPIRE on behalf of CIGA, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over vocational rehabilitation benefits after the repeal of Labor Code Section 139.5. The defendant argues the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) lacks jurisdiction for benefits awarded after the repeal. The WCAB granted reconsideration to align with its en banc decision in *Weiner v. Ralphs Company*, which addresses the jurisdictional impact of the statutory repeal. The Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings pending the *Weiner* decision.

Labor Code Section 139.5Vocational RehabilitationJurisdictionRepealReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn Banc DecisionAmicus CuriaeRetroactive Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ4265715
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

ARNIE K. RAGLAND vs. METROPOLITAN PROVISION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed. The applicant's entitlement to VRMA from a specific date forward was established by a Rehabilitation Unit Determination that became final before the repeal. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination. Therefore, the applicant's right to VRMA from the date of the final Determination vested before the statute's repeal.

VRMAVocational RehabilitationVested RightLabor Code 139.5RepealRehabilitation UnitDeterminationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ehlinger

This case concerns an appeal by New York Underwriters, a worker's compensation insurer, challenging an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award of death benefits to the statutory beneficiaries of the deceased worker, Clarence G. Ehlinger. The insurer initially filed an appeal in district court, mistakenly naming the deceased worker as the sole defendant. After the statutory 20-day appeal period expired, an amended petition was filed correctly identifying the beneficiaries as defendants. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by this court. The court ruled that the original petition naming the deceased was a nullity and did not confer jurisdiction over the beneficiaries, and the subsequent untimely amendment failed to cure this jurisdictional defect. The beneficiaries were thus entitled to stand on the IAB award.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory BeneficiariesMistaken IdentityParty MisnomerTexas LawAppellate ProcedureDeath Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstein v. LeCroy Corp.

This opinion addresses a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The third-party defendant, plaintiff's employer, argued that the third-party complaint was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff had not sustained a "grave injury." The court reviewed the statutory definition of "grave injury" following the 1996 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law, which aimed to repeal Dole v Dow Chem. Co. liability except in such cases. It determined that the plaintiff's alleged injuries, a displaced wrist fracture with 35% loss of use, did not meet the statutory requirement of "permanent and total" loss of use. Consequently, the court granted the third-party defendant's motion and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityStatutory ConstructionDole Liability RepealPersonal Injury ClaimsWrist Fracture InjuryLoss of Use
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hackler v. H. Kohnstamm & Co. of Texas

H. Kohnstamm & Company of Texas, a judgment creditor, initiated a statutory action against Sheriff H. F. Hackler of Camp County and his sureties. The action stemmed from the sheriff's alleged failure and refusal to levy an execution on the property of judgment debtor George Collins, and for making a false return. The creditor claimed Collins possessed leviable assets, including his Pittsburg Laundry business, which he sold for a substantial sum while the execution was in the sheriff's possession. The sheriff contended he exercised due diligence and believed the property was exempt as 'tools and apparatus' of a trade. The court, citing precedents, determined that some assets, such as a cash register and scales, were not exempt. Consequently, the court found sufficient support in the record for the trial court's implied findings that not all laundry assets were wholly exempt and that the sheriff failed to exercise due diligence, leading to the affirmation of the judgment against the sheriff.

Execution of JudgmentSheriff LiabilityExempt PropertyTools and Apparatus ExemptionFalse ReturnDue DiligenceStatutory ActionTexas LawProperty LevyJudgment Creditor
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,479 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