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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.M. v. M.M.-M.

This case involves a matrimonial action between S.M. (plaintiff) and M.M-M. (defendant) concerning pendente lite relief, child support, maintenance, and the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the transfer of the husband's business (EA & D) to his daughter. The court granted the wife's request for the husband to continue paying all costs associated with maintaining the marital residence and awarded her $1,290 per month in temporary child support, retroactive to July 30, 2015. However, the court denied the wife's motion to determine if the transfer of EA & D was improper, reserving the issue for trial due to a factual dispute over the husband's intent. The court also denied the request for a forensic evaluation of EA & D and M. Studios, stating it lacked jurisdiction over the transferred business and that M. Studios had no assets to value. The court noted that if the transfer is later found improper, the wife could be awarded a greater share of remaining marital property.

divorce proceedingstemporary maintenancechild support awardmarital property disputebusiness asset transferequitable distribution factorsforensic accounting denialmatrimonial lawNew York Supreme Courtpendente lite relief
References
12
Case No. 04-19-00538-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

William Alec Tisdall, M.D. and William A. Tisdall, M.D., P.A. D/B/A Spine & Joint Pain Specialists v. Thomas Varebrook and Rebecca Varebrook

William Alec Tisdall, M.D., and his medical practice appealed a final judgment stemming from a medical negligence lawsuit initiated by Thomas and Rebecca Varebrook. The jury found Tisdall negligent, awarding substantial damages after Thomas developed a severe septic sacroiliac joint infection following steroid injections administered by Dr. Tisdall, which left him permanently disabled and unable to continue his police career. On appeal, Tisdall argued that the trial court erred by allowing improper jury argument, admitting cumulative and prejudicial independent medical examinations, and denying a motion for mistrial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury argument was invited error, the medical examination evidence was properly admitted given its probative value and lack of unfair prejudice, and any error regarding the motion for mistrial was unpreserved and, if preserved, cured by the court's instruction to disregard.

Medical negligenceJury verdict appealEvidentiary rulingsImproper jury argumentIndependent medical examinationsMotion for mistrialInstruction to disregardStandard of careCausationDamages award
References
31
Case No. 05-19-00392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2019

in the Interest of M.M.M. and C.N.M., Children

B.M., an incarcerated father, appealed a post-answer default judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor children, M.M.M. and C.N.M. He argued denial of notice, a fair trial, and due process. The trial court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination, citing B.M.'s conduct endangering the children, failure to provide support, and criminal conviction leading to incarceration. The Court of Appeals overruled all of B.M.'s issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment, primarily because B.M. failed to preserve the issues for appellate review by not filing a motion for new trial or timely objecting in the trial court. The court also concluded that B.M. received proper notice of the trial setting.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentDue ProcessNotice of TrialAppellate ReviewWaiver of ErrorIncarcerated ParentChild WelfareTexas Family LawPost-answer Default
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Troy M.

The Law Guardian filed a motion on behalf of Thomas M., Jr. and Troy M. to dismiss petitions by St. Dominic's Home seeking to terminate the parental rights of respondents Thomas M. and Helen R. The Law Guardian argued that even if permanent neglect were found, the petitions would be dismissed at the dispositional hearing as it would not be in the children's best interests to terminate parental rights, citing their desire to maintain a relationship with their father, lack of preadoptive homes, and positive visits. St. Dominic's Home opposed, stating no legal authority supported a pre-dispositional dismissal and that best interests are determined at a dispositional hearing. The court denied the motion, holding that statutory framework requires best interests to be addressed at the dispositional hearing, not beforehand, and no provision exists for dismissal 'in the interests of justice' at this stage. The court also distinguished the cited precedent, Matter of Brian G., finding the current case's facts did not warrant a similar summary dismissal.

parental rights terminationpermanent neglectbest interests of the childdispositional hearingfact-finding hearingFamily Court proceduremotion to dismissLaw Guardian rolechildren's wishesadoption likelihood
References
1
Case No. M2002-02242-COA-R3-CV, 3300DV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2004

B.M.M. v. P.R.M.

This case involves a child custody dispute where the mother, B. M. M., and father, P. R. M., initially had a parenting plan granting the mother primary residential parent status with supervised visitation for the father due to the mother's sexual abuse concerns. The father petitioned for unsupervised visitation, and the mother sought to relocate to Florida with their daughter. The trial court denied the mother's relocation and granted the father unsupervised visitation, prompting the mother to defy the order by moving to Florida. Consequently, the father was granted emergency custody, the mother was found in criminal contempt, and was ordered to pay the father's private investigator fees and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed all decisions, concluding that the trial court correctly found no basis for the mother's sexual abuse allegations and that her actions were detrimental to the child's well-being and relationship with the father.

Child CustodyParental RelocationSupervised VisitationCriminal ContemptParental AlienationSexual Abuse AllegationsBest Interest of the ChildMaterial Change in CircumstancesAttorney's FeesPrivate Investigator Fees
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. 05-19-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

in the Interest of M.M., a Child

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (Department) filed a suit to terminate Father’s parental rights concerning his minor child, M.M., which the trial court granted after a jury trial. Father appealed, raising six issues, including alleged violations of Family Code deadlines, ineffective assistance of counsel, an erroneous denial of an intervenor's motion, and improper admission of his murder conviction. The Court of Appeals overruled all of Father's issues, finding no violation of Family Code deadlines, no ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of standing for the intervenor's issue, and no abuse of discretion in admitting the conviction. The court also determined that Father failed to preserve his evidentiary sufficiency challenges regarding the jury's findings on M.M.'s best interest and the Department's appointment as managing conservator. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment terminating Father's parental rights was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Protective ServicesIneffective Assistance of CounselFamily Code DeadlinesRule 11 AgreementIntervention PetitionCriminal Conviction AdmissibilityBest Interest of ChildEvidentiary SufficiencyManaging Conservatorship
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godinet v. Thomas

Celia Godinet, as executrix of Georgina Valdez's estate, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Georgia Thomas. Valdez, an employee of M.D. Anderson Hospital, suffered an occupational injury from a contaminated needle and was treated by Dr. Thomas, a co-employee. Valdez subsequently died, and her estate filed claims for constitutional violations (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988), negligence, and gross negligence against Dr. Thomas. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no actionable deprivation of constitutional rights and applying the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Act served as the exclusive remedy for Valdez's injuries and precluded the federal claims and those for negligent infliction of emotional distress against a co-employee.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Act42 U.S.C. Section 198342 U.S.C. Section 1988NegligenceGross NegligenceMedical MalpracticeExclusive RemedyCo-employee ImmunityOccupational Injury
References
4
Case No. 01-05-00838-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2007

Craig Thomas, Karen Thomas, Kaitlin Thomas and Caroline Thomas v. CNC Investments, L.L.P.

This case involves an appeal by Craig Thomas and his family (Appellants) against CNC Investments, L.L.P. (Appellee) following a summary judgment in favor of CNC. Deputy Craig Thomas was injured while assisting another deputy hired by CNC for security at an apartment complex; he was shot by the other deputy and run over by a suspect in a stolen vehicle. The Appellants sued CNC for vicarious liability for assault, premises liability, and negligent hiring. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the other deputy was acting as a public-safety officer, the "firefighter's rule" barred premises liability claims, and the negligent hiring claim lacked sufficient evidence.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligent HiringFirefighter's RulePublic Safety OfficerOff-Duty OfficerRespondeat SuperiorLicensee DutyForeseeability
References
57
Showing 1-10 of 2,343 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