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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1997

Di Blasi v. Traffax Traffic Network

Plaintiff, an on-air traffic announcer for Traffax Traffic Network, was discharged after reporting for jury duty despite his supervisor's directive to report to work. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Judiciary Law § 519 and wrongful/retaliatory discharge, as well as breach of contract. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that neither section of the Judiciary Law provided a private cause of action and that his employment was at-will, precluding a breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that allowing a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme and acknowledging the Legislature's veto of a bill to amend Judiciary Law § 519 to include a civil remedy. The court also found no support for a breach of contract claim, reiterating that his at-will employment could be terminated for any reason.

jury dutywrongful dischargeretaliatory dischargeemployment at willprivate right of actionlegislative intentstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentbreach of contractemployee protection
References
11
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. 01-15-01015-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2015

Allied Collision Center Inc. v. Ewemade Ozigbo

This document is a civil docketing statement filed with the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. It outlines an appeal filed by Allied Collision Center, Inc. against Ewemade Ozigbo. The original judgment, signed on September 1, 2015, resulted from a bench trial involving breach of contract and DTPA claims, with actual damages of $2634.23 and punitive damages of $5268.42 awarded. The statement includes details about the attorneys for both parties, the perfection of the appeal, financial aspects of the case, and options for pro bono representation and alternative dispute resolution.

Appellate ProcedureDocketing StatementCivil AppealBreach of ContractDTPATexas Court of AppealsJudgment AppealNotice of AppealAttorney RepresentationPro Bono Program
References
0
Case No. 11-07-00268-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

Allstar Refinishing & Collision Center, Inc. v. Paula Rosas

Paula Rosas sued Allstar Refinishing & Collision Center, Inc. for conversion after Allstar failed to return her vehicle following repairs despite her payment. Allstar claimed a right to retain the vehicle under a statutory possessory lien, arguing she owed for a rental car. The trial court granted summary judgment for Rosas. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the lien under Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 70.001 applies only to repair costs, not rental expenses. The court also noted Rosas had the right to direct her payment and Allstar failed to provide evidence for its mitigation of damages defense.

ConversionPossessory LienStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDebtor's Right to Direct PaymentMitigation of DamagesVehicle Repair DisputeAppellate ReviewTexas Property CodeCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00660
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Jones v. General Traffic Equip. Corp.

Claimant Renford Jones, who sustained a work-related back injury resulting in a permanent partial disability, sought a hearing to modify his reduced earnings awards. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) modified the awards. The employer, General Traffic Equipment Corp., and the State Insurance Fund (SIF) appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for Board review was denied due to alleged incompleteness, specifically the omission of the hearing date for their objection. SIF's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that SIF's response, which provided the exact time of the objection in the digital audio recording of the sole hearing, adequately met the regulatory requirements. The court remitted the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision, dismissing the appeal from the denial of reconsideration as academic.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ProcedureBoard ReviewRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeDigital Audio RecordingPleadings and MotionsDisability Benefits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. 01-09-00730-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2011

Robert D. Lyall, Individually and Lyall Brothers Collision Center v. Ermenegildo Bermudez

Ermenegildo Bermudez sued Robert D. Lyall and Lyall Brothers Collision Center for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and other causes, including conversion and violations of the Texas Property Code, after his truck was repossessed over alleged storage fees. The trial court ruled in favor of Bermudez, awarding treble damages for wrongful repossession and unconscionable conduct. Lyall appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the treble damages award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support that Lyall engaged in knowing, unconscionable conduct by repossessing Bermudez's truck without proper notice, using it for personal purposes, and failing to follow legal procedures for disposing of the vehicle.

DTPADeceptive Trade PracticesConsumer ProtectionWrongful RepossessionStorage FeesMechanic's LienTexas Property CodeTreble DamagesUnconscionable ConductLegal Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1979

Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,214 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