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. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Case No. 04-15-00021-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio v. Michael and Theresa Hayes

The County Court reversed the Board of Adjustment's action regarding Appeal No. A-14-049. This reversal means that the City of San Antonio Permit No. 1951114 to construct a guardrail remains revoked. Additionally, the Board of Adjustment's action from January 13, 2014, in Case Number A-13-0732 remains final. The court also denied the Board of Adjustment's plea to the jurisdiction and their objection to the evidence.

Zoning DisputeAdministrative AppealBuilding PermitsLocal GovernmentProperty RightsJudicial ReviewTexas LawGuardrail RegulationCode EnforcementSan Antonio
References
6
Case No. 12-13-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips

Guy Sparkman appealed the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation and others. Sparkman alleged that Microsoft's representatives remotely accessed his computer and caused issues, which he believed was part of a scheme to coerce him into purchasing updated software. He filed a suit based on breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The trial court declared Sparkman a vexatious litigant and dismissed his suit for failing to furnish a required $7,500 security. On appeal, Sparkman raised six issues, including challenges to judicial authority and bias, the constitutionality of the vexatious litigant statute, and due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of Sparkman's arguments.

Vexatious LitigantDismissalAppealConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionJudicial RecusalJudicial AuthorityPro Se Litigant
References
30
Case No. MDL 381
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation

Defendants, manufacturers of Agent Orange, brought third-party actions against the United States government seeking indemnity and contribution for settlement payments made to veterans' wives and children. The government moved to dismiss these claims. The court reiterated that previous direct claims against the government by veterans, wives, and children were dismissed either by the Feres doctrine or for failure to prove a causal connection. The third-party plaintiffs and defendants concurred that Agent Orange causation could not be established with available evidence. Consequently, the court granted the government's motion, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes recovery without government misfeasance, and dismissed all third-party claims against the government, along with any existing government claims against other parties.

Agent OrangeProduct LiabilityThird Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Tort Claims ActFeres DoctrineCausationMilitary VeteransClass Action Settlement
References
12
Case No. 3-92-291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1993

Ronald David Patton v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Jean Auvenshine and American International Adjustment Company, Inc.

Ronald David Patton sued National Union Fire Insurance Company, Jean Auvenshine, and American International Adjustment Company, Inc., alleging violations of the duty of good faith and fair dealing related to his workers' compensation claim. Patton had injured his back in 1985, and his claim was formally denied by National Union in June 1987. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of the appellees, ruling that Patton's suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, holding that the cause of action accrued at the time of the denial of coverage in June 1987, and that the tort was not a continuous one, nor was the statute of limitations tolled by subsequent events or the involvement of an adjuster.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Bad FaithStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of AppealsDenial of CoverageAccrual of Cause of ActionContinuous TortInsurance Adjuster Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heinsohn v. Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau

Robert Heinsohn sued his former employer, Trans-Con Adjustment Bureau, alleging wrongful termination after suffering a work-related injury, claiming the company discharged him to avoid a workers' compensation claim. The trial court granted the company's motion for a directed verdict, citing no evidence of damages. Heinsohn appealed this decision. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of damages, including lost wages and medical expenses, to overcome a directed verdict. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, asserting that a jury should have been allowed to consider the evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawDirected VerdictDamagesLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewTexas LawBurden of Proof
References
6
Case No. POM 0281587
Regular
May 02, 2008

ALINDA YELLOWHAIR vs. HAIR MASTERS, THE HARTFORD, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a prior award that improperly included disability from an admitted non-industrial shoulder injury. The Board reduced the applicant's permanent disability rating from 24% to 16% by removing the shoulder component and found that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for apportioning head and neck injury disability due to a subsequent motor vehicle accident. Consequently, the award for permanent disability indemnity was adjusted to reflect the 16% rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationApportionmentQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryNon-Industrial AccidentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCausation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Durkin

The plaintiff, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, initiated an action seeking a declaration that sections 213 and 213-a of the New York State Insurance Law prohibited the retroactive payment of a wage increase. This increase of $2.85 per week was awarded by the National War Labor Board to its insurance agents, dating back to the start of arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff argued these statutes, designed to prevent excessive post-facto compensation, made such retroactive payments unlawful. However, the trial court and Appellate Division, whose decision was affirmed, concluded that the statutes were not intended to interfere with the common practice of collective bargaining and arbitration, which frequently involves retroactive wage adjustments. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the insurance laws was to curb abuses like bonuses and gratuities, not to hinder ordinary and orderly wage-fixing mechanisms, thereby affirming the legality of the retroactive wage increase.

Insurance RegulationRetroactive CompensationCollective Bargaining DisputesWage Arbitration AwardNew York Insurance LawLabor Relations BoardStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court RulingEmployee Benefits LitigationContractual Agreements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 82-0021
Regular Panel Decision

Fraticelli v. Dow Chemical Co.

The case involves three civilian employees (Fraticelli, Oshita, Takatsuki) of the University of Hawaii who sued manufacturers of Agent Orange, the US, and the University's former Regents, alleging harm from exposure to Agent Orange in 1966-67. The plaintiffs developed various illnesses, which they attributed to Agent Orange exposure. The court denied class certification and found that claims against the chemical companies and former Regents were barred by Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations and, for the Regents, by the receipt of workers' compensation. Crucially, the court found no admissible evidence that Agent Orange caused the plaintiffs' illnesses, citing issues with expert testimony and the presence of other risk factors. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the action was dismissed.

Agent OrangeHerbicide ExposureToxic ChemicalsProduct LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationCausation DefenseSummary JudgmentClass Action DenialFederal Tort Claims Act
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,606 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