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. 2017-05-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2017

Glasgow, Jack v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc.

Jack Glasgow, an employee, sustained multiple injuries after falling while installing insulation for 31-W Insulation Co., Inc. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, asserting willful misconduct and willful failure to use safety devices as affirmative defenses, citing Glasgow's prior similar injury and alleged disregard of safety protocols. The trial court initially awarded benefits, finding the employer failed to prove bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, as Glasgow was not disciplined for the previous incident and was subsequently rehired. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer did not demonstrate consistent, bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, which is a required element to establish its affirmative defenses. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryWillful MisconductSafety DeviceAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementEmployee SafetyEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawAppeals Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Combs

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of Texas seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued its software transfers to out-of-state franchisees qualified for a sale-for-resale exemption and that software for out-of-state company stores was not subject to Texas use tax. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for the State and remanded the case, highlighting the applicability of the sale-for-resale exemption to the franchise software and the materiality of the 'use' definition for out-of-state company stores, requiring further factual development.

Sales TaxSoftware LicensingTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesTangible Personal PropertyUse TaxOut-of-State SalesFranchise StoresCompany Stores
References
34
Case No. 03-11-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Lawrence Black v. Franklin Service Stations, Inc., D/B/A J & J Towing And 7-Eleven Convenience Stores

This case involves Lawrence Black's appeal after his truck was towed from a 7-Eleven parking lot. Black's fiancé, Althea Zuniga, the registered owner, initially won an unlawful towing claim in justice court, but the county court at law ruled in favor of the appellees. Black attempted to intervene and appeal nearly two months after the county court's final judgment, which had also denied Zuniga's motion for new trial. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed Black's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Black's post-judgment attempt to intervene was barred as a matter of law, and he did not qualify under the 'virtual representation' doctrine, thus lacking standing to bring the appeal.

StandingInterventionFinal JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionVirtual RepresentationMotion to DismissTowing DisputeTrial Court JudgmentPost-judgment MotionsTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. 03-08-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2010

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

7-Eleven, Inc. sued the Comptroller of Public Accounts and Attorney General of Texas, seeking a partial refund of sales tax on financial software for its retail stores. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, which 7-Eleven appealed. 7-Eleven argued it was entitled to recover taxes on software transferred to out-of-state third-party franchisees and out-of-state 7-Eleven-operated stores, claiming exemption via sale-for-resale or non-use in Texas. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the sale-for-resale exemption for franchise store software and found neither party was entitled to summary judgment on the out-of-state company stores due to unresolved 'use' issues. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including new issues raised by the State on rehearing concerning software license allocation and potential 'divergent use.'

Sales TaxUse TaxTax ExemptionSale for ResaleData Processing ServicesSoftware LicensingSummary JudgmentTexas Tax CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Construction
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texans Against Censorship v. State Bar of Texas

The case is a federal civil action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that regulate attorney advertising and solicitation. Plaintiffs, including Texans Against Censorship, Inc. and individual attorneys, argued the rules violate First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. The court, presided over by Justice, District Judge, analyzed the rules under commercial speech guidelines. It upheld most amended rules, such as those concerning trade names, false communications, comparison of services, telephone solicitation bans, and record-keeping, as constitutional. However, three rules were found unconstitutional: the "branch office rule" (7.04(j)) as applied to plaintiff Newton, and the bans on implying State Bar approval (7.05(b)(4)) and personally delivered mail (7.05(b)(5)) as facially unconstitutional. The court granted declaratory relief but declined injunctive relief.

Attorney AdvertisingCommercial SpeechFirst AmendmentConstitutional LawLegal EthicsProfessional ConductDeclaratory ReliefFree SpeechEqual ProtectionPrior Restraint
References
0
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7 World Trade Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves an appeal where plaintiffs sought damages from Westinghouse Electric Corp. for negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty after explosions in bus ducts supplied by Westinghouse caused injury to workers and damage to the ducts at 7 World Trade Center. The trial court found Westinghouse 70% liable for negligence and strict liability. However, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, vacated the prior damage award, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that under the economic loss rule established in Bocre Leasing Corp. v General Motors Corp., plaintiffs could not recover for purely economic losses in tort without allegations of bodily injury or damage to other property. The court clarified that personal injury claims by workers did not extend to the plaintiffs' economic losses and that the Bocre rule applies to immediate purchasers.

Product LiabilityEconomic Loss RuleNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantyAppellate ReviewTort LawDamagesBus DuctsWorld Trade Center
References
11
Case No. 03-21-00074-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2023

Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation// Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust// Cross-Appellee, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

This declaratory-judgment action involves a dispute between the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the Division) and insurance carriers, Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust, regarding rules for workers’ compensation supplemental income benefits (SIB). The carriers challenged the validity of a Division rule, 28 Texas Administrative Code Section 130.102, which governs eligibility for SIB, specifically concerning the "work search efforts" requirement for injured employees. The district court had ruled a section of the rule (d)(1)(D) invalid and another section (f) inapplicable to independent job seekers. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding that Section (d)(1)(D) was invalid, concluding it was facially valid. However, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling that Section (f)'s "work search contacts" language does not qualitatively apply to independent job seekers, but only for setting a numerical standard. Additionally, the court found certain parts of the Division's preamble to the rule and its Appeals Panel Decision Manual to contain invalid ad hoc rules, reversing the district court on this point, while affirming that an Appeals Panel Decision and the SIB application form were not ad hoc rules. The court also found the exclusion of an expert witness to be harmless.

Workers’ CompensationSupplemental Income BenefitsAgency Rule ValidityAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActionStatutory InterpretationWork Search RequirementsAd Hoc RulesAppellate ProcedureTexas Government Code
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 11,832 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