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. 15-25-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2025

The State of Texas v. Nonparty Patient No. 1, Nonparty Patient No. 2, Nonparty Patient No. 3, Nonparty Patient No. 4, Nonparty Patient No. 5, Nonparty Patient No. 6, Nonparty Patient No. 7, and Nonparty Patient No. 8, Nonparty Patient No. 9, Nonparty Patient No. 10, and Nonparty Patient No. 11

This case involves an appeal by the State of Texas against the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and plea in abatement. The State, as appellant, initially sued Dr. May C. Lau in Collin County, alleging violations of SB 14 and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and issued subpoenas in Dallas County to obtain medical records of 21 nonparty patients. The appellees, eleven nonparty patients, challenged these subpoenas in Dallas County, asserting physician-patient and mental health information privileges under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 176.6(e) and 192.6(a). The State argues that sovereign immunity prevents the Dallas County court from hearing these challenges and that the only proper forum is Collin County. The appellees contend that the Texas Supreme Court precedent dictates that rules of civil procedure apply to the State unless explicitly carved out, and that common law principles of sovereign immunity do not extend to discovery disputes.

Sovereign ImmunityDiscovery DisputeSubpoena ChallengeMedical RecordsPatient PrivilegeMental Health PrivilegeRules of Civil ProcedureRules of EvidenceAppellate LawPlea to Jurisdiction
References
191
Case No. 10-14-00189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2015

in the Interest of Y.H.T., A.M.T. and R.S.T., Children

Appellant Teisa I. Tupou-Pati challenged the trial court's dismissal of her petition seeking managing conservatorship of her grandchildren, Y.H.T., A.M.T., and R.S.T. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellant lacked standing to file the suit. The court found that the appellant did not satisfy the standing requirements under Texas Family Code § 102.003(a)(9), as the children were not in her custody for the specified period before the petition was filed. Additionally, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellant's motions for new trial and to reinstate, as the arguments regarding the children's endangerment were not timely asserted in the original petition and the evidence presented in post-judgment affidavits was not newly discovered.

Family LawChild ConservatorshipStandingAppellate ReviewTexas Family CodeDismissalGrandparent RightsSubject-Matter JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07300 [144 AD3d 761]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Mammone v. T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, a maintenance worker, fell from a ladder while attempting to change air filters at Garden City High School. He commenced an action against T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC, the construction manager, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing these causes of action against Nickel. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), his accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6), and Nickel lacked authority to supervise or control the plaintiff's work for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction Manager Liability
References
9
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tanya T.

This case concerns an appeal from an Albany County Family Court order which adjudicated four children, Tanya T., Tabitha T., Deion T., and Davonna T., as abused and/or neglected. The petition alleged that their father sexually molested Davonna in Deion’s presence. The Family Court issued orders of supervision and protection, mandating treatment for the father and prohibiting visitation. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court’s findings, determining that the children's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by behavioral changes, expert testimony, and consistent statements. The appellate court also upheld the denial of the father's visitation petition, concluding it was not in the children's best interests due to their fear and the father's history of violence.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual MolestationCorroboration of Child StatementsBehavioral ChangesExpert TestimonyDenial of VisitationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03787 [150 AD3d 910]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2017

Robinson v. National Grid Energy Management, LLC

Joseph Robinson, an electrical foreman, was injured after falling from an aerial bucket that malfunctioned while he was attempting to exit it. He and his wife sued National Grid Energy Management, LLC, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Omnipoint Communications, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the T-Mobile defendants on the Labor Law claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. It found that the bucket truck was not defective in providing fall protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense, while also concluding that Labor Law § 241 (6) did not apply as the work was not construction, demolition, or excavation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFall from HeightWorkplace AccidentAerial LiftTelecommunicationsNegligenceDuty to Provide Safety Devices
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05085
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2020

Wein v. East Side 11th & 28th, LLC

Shane Wein and his wife initiated an action against East Side 11th & 28th, LLC, and SBF Construction, Inc., seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Mr. Wein during the assembly of a tower crane at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order was subsequently appealed by both parties. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (2) (i). Conversely, it granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (1) (iv) and 23-8.2 (c) (3), and the Labor Law § 200 claim against SBF Construction, Inc., as modified, the order was affirmed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentHoist OperationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyNegligenceComparative Negligence
References
17
Case No. M2008-01174-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

In Re B.D., R.M.T. & V.F.T.

Mother Regina C. and Father Nicholas T. appealed the Juvenile Court's decision to terminate their parental rights to children B.D., R.M.T., and V.F.T. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights, citing his substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and the children's best interests. For Mother, while the court reversed the grounds of substantial noncompliance and abandonment by failure to visit, it upheld the termination based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and the persistence of conditions, specifically her involvement in domestic violence and current homelessness. The court concluded that terminating both parents' rights was in the children's best interests, affirming the juvenile court's judgment in part and reversing in part.

Parental Rights TerminationJuvenile LawChild AbusePermanency PlanBest Interests of the ChildAbandonmentSubstantial NoncomplianceDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewGuardianship
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Penta v. Related Companies

Vincenzo Penta, a carpenter, was injured when struck by a crane hook on the 17th floor of a building under construction. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code regulations 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and 23-8.2 (c) (3). The Supreme Court initially found a question of fact regarding 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i), but the Appellate Division determined this regulation was inapplicable as a crane hook is not a 'moving part' requiring guards. The court agreed that 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (c) (3) was not applicable since the crane was not hoisting a load at the time of the accident. However, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the common-law negligence claim under Labor Law § 200, as defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not supervise or control the crane's operation. The order was modified to grant dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentCrane InjuryIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law Section 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,417 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