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. 14-23-00605-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

In Re All Repair and Restoration D/B/A All Day USA, Inc., Joe Saavedra, and National Casualty Company v. the State of Texas

Relators, All Repair and Restoration d/b/a All Day USA, Inc., Joe Saavedra, and National Casualty Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. They sought to compel Judge Fredericka Phillips of the 61st District Court of Harris County to withdraw an order granting consolidation and to abate a personal injury suit (cause number 2021-62055). This personal injury suit was filed by Romny Sanchez, who was injured in a vehicle accident while working for All Dry. Sanchez had also initiated a judicial review suit (cause number 2023-10851) after the DWC determined he was not an All Dry employee. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the petition, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in consolidating the judicial review suit with the personal injury suit and in denying the relators' motion to abate the personal injury suit until the judicial review suit is resolved. The court cited the distinct legal issues of the two cases and the potential for prejudice and jury confusion as reasons for its decision.

MandamusConsolidationAbatementWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewPersonal InjuryAbuse of DiscretionExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (insurer) against Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Corp. (insured) regarding unpaid retrospective premiums on a workers' compensation policy. The insurer sought to recover additional premiums calculated based on the insured's loss record, as stipulated by a 'Retrospective Premium Endorsement.' The defendant raised multiple defenses and counterclaims, alleging improper calculations, misrepresentation, and mishandling of claims. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the defendant's opposition, primarily an attorney's affidavit lacking personal knowledge, was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court found the defendant's defenses and counterclaims legally insufficient, affirming the insurer's contractual right to negotiate and settle claims.

Workers' Compensation PolicyRetrospective PremiumSummary JudgmentContract DisputeInsurance LawAppellate ReviewAffidavit SufficiencyEvidentiary FactsClaims SettlementPolicy Interpretation
References
6
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. 04-24-00797-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Eunice Villanueva v. Structural Repair, LLC; Isabel Alcantara; Frederick Marshall; Francis Check; Bradley Bertelsen; Michael Ellington; And Jarrod McBride

Eunice Villanueva appealed a summary judgment favoring Structural Repair, LLC and other appellees, stemming from a dispute over foundation repair. An initial arbitration between Villanueva and Advanced Foundation Repair, L.P. resulted in an award for Villanueva on a DTPA violation, which was subsequently confirmed by the trial court. Villanueva then sued the appellees, who were related to Advanced Foundation, asserting similar claims of fraud and DTPA violations. The appellees successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing res judicata based on the prior arbitration. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the arbitration award constituted a final judgment, the appellees were in privity with Advanced Foundation, and the claims were identical to those previously litigated, thus satisfying all elements of res judicata. The court also clarified that Villanueva's attempt to pierce the corporate veil did not introduce a new substantive claim precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppealRes JudicataArbitration AwardPrivityCorporate VeilTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActFoundation RepairFraudCivil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2005

Arevalo v. Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

The plaintiff worker sustained personal injuries after falling off a ladder while performing maintenance on an electric sign. The plaintiff sought relief under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the work was routine maintenance, not a repair covered by the statute. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Upon renewal, the court adhered to its original decision. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal, holding that replacing components due to normal wear and tear constitutes routine maintenance, not a repair under the statute.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentRoutine MaintenanceLabor Law 240(1)Summary Judgment DismissalAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationElectric Sign MaintenanceWorker FallConstruction Law
References
5
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. 13-20-00195-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

Jaime Martinez D/B/A IMJ Truck Repair v. Hauling 365, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a default judgment issued by the County Court at Law No. 10 of Bexar County, Texas, concerning a negligence and breach of contract claim related to a transport truck repair. The appellant, Jaime Martinez d/b/a IMJ Truck Repair, challenged the denial of his motion for a new trial, the sufficiency of evidence for lost profits, and the award of attorney's fees to the appellee, Hauling 365, LLC. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for a new trial, finding the first Craddock element (no conscious indifference) unsatisfied. It reversed the attorney's fees award due to a lack of presentment of claim, and remanded the issue of lost profits for a new trial due to legally and factually insufficient evidence.

Default judgmentNegligence claimBreach of contractMotion for new trialCraddock testConscious indifferenceLost profitsSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesPresentment requirement
References
24
Case No. 05-20-00936-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2022

Diana Convenience, LLC, HQ Food, Inc., Hajar Convenience, LLC, Shark Phones, LLC, and AMK Convenience, LLC v. Dollar ATM, LLC

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas at Dallas affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment from Collin County. Appellants, Diana Convenience, LLC, et al., appealed a judgment awarding damages to Dollar ATM, LLC for breach of contract, specifically challenging pre-trial orders imposing discovery sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's "death penalty sanctions" against the appellants, finding that their repeated failure to comply with discovery requests and resistance to providing material evidence justified the severe sanctions, establishing that the signatories had authority and prohibiting them from contesting ATM revenue. However, the court vacated a prior award of $1,050 in attorney's fees, ruling it was not supported by legally sufficient evidence of reasonableness.

Discovery SanctionsBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureMemorandum OpinionDeath Penalty SanctionsMotion to Compel
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 4,416 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