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. 08-06-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2008

David J. Quick v. Plastics Solutions of Texas, Inc., a Texas Corporation Plastics Solutions Molding, Inc., a Texas Corporation Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., Individually and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc.

Appellant David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc., Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc., Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, sought royalties based on an agreement related to Ruppman's patented cryogenic technology. The trial court interpreted the "Royalty Revenue Agreement" to limit Quick's interest to licensing income derived from a specific heat-set/barrier blow molding technology process after January 23, 1997, and found no such income. The court also concluded that Quick's breach of contract claim was barred by failure of consideration and prior material breach due to his cessation of services. The Eighth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues, including the contract interpretation and the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract lawRoyalty agreementBreach of contractDeclaratory judgmentFailure of considerationPrior material breachAttorney's feesAppellate reviewContract interpretationPatent licensing
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Quick v. Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc.

David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning his contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc. (PST), Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc. (PSMI), Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, contended he was owed a 3% royalty from a 1997 'Royalty Revenue Agreement' based on 'Net Royalty Income Revenue.' The core dispute involved the interpretation of this term: Quick argued it included manufacturing income, while the defendants asserted it was limited to licensing income from a specific cryogenic technology. The trial court found the agreement ambiguous and ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding the royalty was restricted to licensing income from the specific technology, and no such income was received. Additionally, Quick's breach of contract claim was barred due to failure of consideration and his prior material breach by ceasing to provide services. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all grounds, including the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract DisputeRoyalty AgreementLicensing IncomeManufacturing IncomeCryogenic TechnologyPatent RightsBreach of ContractFailure of ConsiderationDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golten Marine Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The case involves petitioners, neighboring businesses, appealing a judgment concerning construction permits for 20th Century Recycling, Inc. The Supreme Court, Queens County, annulled negative declarations by the DEC and permits issued by the DEC and NYC Department of Health. The appellate court affirmed this annulment, finding that the DEC failed to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, the DEC omitted crucial environmental concerns like traffic, zoning, and community character in its initial negative declaration, a violation of SEQRA mandates (6 NYCRR 617.11). A subsequent 'amended negative declaration' was deemed insufficient to retroactively validate the invalid environmental review, as SEQRA requires literal compliance.

Environmental LawSEQRAConstruction PermitsNegative DeclarationJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78ZoningTraffic ImpactCommunity CharacterRegulatory Compliance
References
7
Case No. 13-09-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Ernest Belmarez, Eddie Guajardo, William Phillips, Chris Shannon, Ramico Ramos, and Norma Mayorga v. Formosa Plastics Corporation Texas, Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit following a fire and explosions at Formosa Plastics Corporation's plant in Point Comfort, Texas, on October 6, 2005. Appellants, including Ernest Belmarez and five others, who were not Formosa employees but worked at the plant, claimed injuries while evacuating and sued Formosa, a forklift operator, and several contractors. After a jury returned a take-nothing verdict, the plaintiffs appealed, raising five issues. These issues primarily contested the trial court's exclusion of a Taproot Incident Report, OSHA citations, and Social Security disability findings, and the admission of evidence concerning their failure to file workers' compensation claims, along with arguments regarding counsel's conduct. The Thirteenth District Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in its evidentiary rulings or the jury arguments.

Personal InjuryIndustrial AccidentPlant FireExplosionsEvidentiary RulingsSubsequent Remedial MeasuresOSHA CitationsSocial Security DisabilityJury ArgumentAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 11-08-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2010

Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas v. Synthia McLain

Synthia McLain, the insured, sued Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas for contractual claims related to her uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) policy after a car accident. The trial court awarded McLain $116,726, but Mid-Century appealed, arguing errors concerning the policy limit, insufficient evidence for lost earning capacity, and improper jury argument. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, sustaining Mid-Century's issues on the policy limit, insufficient evidence for lost earning capacity, and the incurable improper jury argument made by McLain's counsel. The appellate court, however, overruled the issue regarding future medical expenses. The case was remanded for a new trial, with instructions that any judgment against Mid-Century should not exceed the $20,000 policy limit.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist CoverageInsurance LawContractual DisputesImproper Jury ArgumentLost Earning CapacityFuture Medical ExpensesBurden of ProofPolicy LimitsPrejudgment InterestAppellate Reversal
References
29
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. 03-00-00655-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2001

Lon H. Cantrell v. Farmers Group, Inc. and Mid-Century Insurance Company

Lon H. Cantrell appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Farmers Group, Inc. and Mid-Century Insurance Company by the District Court of Travis County. Cantrell, an injured supply clerk for Farmers, had his workers' compensation benefits denied by Mid-Century after he declined a light-duty job offer. He subsequently sued Farmers and Mid-Century for conspiracy and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that Cantrell's action was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, as his suit was filed more than two years after the denial of his benefits. The court upheld the precedent that the cause of action accrues at the point of benefits denial.

Workers' compensation benefitsStatute of limitationsSummary judgmentBad faith insurance claimDenial of coverageAccrual of cause of actionEmployer liabilityInsurance carrierGood faith and fair dealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. 03-05-00494-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Mid-Century Insurance Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case concerns a dispute over the retroactive payment of lifetime income benefits (LIBs) under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Appellant Mid-Century Insurance Company challenged an administrative rule by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (now Division of Workers’ Compensation) that required LIBs to be paid from the original date of disability. Mid-Century contended this rule exceeded the Division's statutory authority, making it liable for benefits before some employees were eligible. Although the district court ruled in favor of the Division, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the rule indeed exceeded the Division's statutory powers, concluding that LIBs should be payable only when an employee becomes eligible for such benefits, not necessarily from the initial date of disability.

Workers' Compensation LawLifetime Income BenefitsAdministrative LawStatutory ConstructionRetroactive PaymentsTexas Appellate CourtsInsurance DisputeJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityTravis County District Court
References
17
Case No. 2015-608 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

In this case, Adelaida Physical Therapy, P.C., acting as an assignee, appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The original order had granted 21st Century Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing parts of a complaint seeking first-party no-fault benefits for services billed under specific CPT codes (97010, 97110, and 97124). The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court found that 21st Century Insurance Company failed to demonstrate that it had used the correct conversion factor to calculate the reimbursement rate, thus not establishing its defense that the charged fees exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. As a result, the branches of the defendant's motion for summary judgment related to those CPT codes were denied.

No-Fault BenefitsCPT CodesSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleReimbursement RateAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeCivil ProcedureConversion FactorMedical Billing
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 251 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