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. 01-01-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Osborne, Ansell L. and Mary F. v. Coldwell Banker United, Realtors, Carol Kappler, Robert M. Atkinson and Denise D. Atkinson

This case involves an appeal of multiple summary judgments concerning the sale of a house in Galveston County, Texas. Ansell and Mary Osborne sued Robert and Denise Atkinson, Coldwell Banker United Realtors, and Carol Kappler for deceptive trade practices, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, alleging misrepresentations and failure to disclose building code violations, FEMA non-compliance, and flood insurance issues related to a house previously owned by the Atkinsons. The Atkinsons, in turn, filed cross-claims and third-party claims against various parties, including Coldwell Banker, Kappler, the Village of Tiki Island, and Omaha Property and Casualty Co. The Court of Appeals affirmed some summary judgments, reversed others, and remanded parts of the case for further proceedings, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the Osbornes' claims against the Atkinsons, Coldwell Banker, and Kappler, and the Atkinsons' negligence claim against Coldwell Banker and Kappler.

Flood InsuranceDeceptive Trade Practices ActReal Estate FraudNegligent MisrepresentationSummary Judgment AppealBuilding Code ViolationsFEMA RegulationsNational Flood Insurance ProgramSeller DisclosureProperty Sale
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maggart v. Almany Realtors, Inc.

Tammy Renee Maggart, an administrative assistant for Almany Realtors, Inc., suffered an in-office injury when a filing cabinet fell on her. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant, citing a general release of liability signed by Maggart. The Court of Appeals reversed, deeming the release against public policy. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal, but on different grounds, ruling that the release was unambiguous and specifically limited to accidents occurring off-premises while running errands, thus not covering the in-office incident. The case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentRelease of LiabilityContract InterpretationOff-Premises AccidentOn-Premises AccidentWorkers' Compensation ExemptionPublic PolicyRemandEmployer Liability
References
16
Case No. ADJ1335306 (SJO 0252339)
Regular
Feb 09, 2011

NANCY CUDDY vs. ALAIN PINEL REALTORS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the employer's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The employer argued that the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule should apply, not the 1997 schedule, and that there was insufficient medical evidence for the finding of dry mouth. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the issues of permanent disability and apportionment. This decision was based on the fact that the treating physician's reports, crucial for determining the applicable rating schedule, were not admitted into evidence. The Board affirmed the finding of dry mouth as a compensable consequence injury based on existing medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlain Pinel RealtorsState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1335306Opinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderindustrial injuryreal estate agentspineleft ankle
References
3
Case No. 2022-03-0420
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2024

Oldham, John v. Freeman Webb Company Realtors dba Sunnybrook

The employee sustained injuries to his right foot and leg, leading to a settlement for permanent partial disability benefits. When the initial benefit period ended, the employee sought increased benefits, extraordinary relief, or permanent total disability. The employer filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing the prior settlement precluded permanent total disability benefits and that medical evidence did not support extraordinary relief. The employer also moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum. The trial court denied both motions. The Appeals Board affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's orders, remanding the case for further proceedings, clarifying that partial summary judgments are not prohibited per se, but upholding judicial discretion in scheduling them, and requiring further consideration of expert discovery rules regarding subpoenas.

Partial Summary JudgmentSubpoena Duces TecumExpert DiscoveryAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityExtraordinary ReliefSettlement AgreementVocational Expert
References
14
Case No. 2022-03-0420
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Oldham, John v. Freeman Webb Company Realtors/d/b/a Sunny Brook

John Oldham, a maintenance technician, suffered a severe leg injury at work for Freeman Webb Company, resulting in a complex femur fracture requiring two surgeries. Initially awarded permanent partial disability, he later sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, which the employer disputed, arguing his claim was barred by a prior settlement and that his current condition was not a direct result of the work injury due to his smoking. Medical experts, however, concluded the nonunion fracture was a natural consequence of the original injury, with smoking being a minor factor. The Court denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, establishing that a previous partial disability settlement does not prevent a later PTD claim. Considering Oldham's age, education, and extensive medical restrictions that severely limit his vocational capacity, the Court ruled he is permanently and totally disabled and awarded him PTD benefits and related costs.

Permanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementIncreased BenefitsExtraordinary ReliefVocational DisabilityMedical ImpairmentNonunion FractureFemur FractureMedical Restrictions
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer

Plaintiffs New York State Association of Realtors, Inc. and Clifford Hall moved the Court for an order granting them attorneys’ fees and costs, together with post-judgment interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. This motion followed a successful appeal to the Second Circuit, which reversed a prior District Court decision, finding a New York State nonsolicitation regulation unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The defendant argued for a 50% reduction in fees, citing the plaintiffs' partial success. However, Judge Spatt of the Eastern District of New York found the overall relief obtained by the plaintiffs to be significant and approved the requested attorneys' fees and expenses, totaling $81,196.27.

Attorneys' FeesCivil Rights LitigationFirst Amendment RightsCommercial SpeechReal Estate LawNonsolicitation RegulationsBlockbustingLodestar MethodSummary JudgmentAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Board of Realtors, Inc. v. Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park

The Long Island Board of Realtors sued the Incorporated Village of Massapequa Park, challenging a municipal ordinance regulating residential signs as an unconstitutional restraint on speech and sought an injunction. The Village cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the ordinance's constitutionality. The court applied the Central Hudson and Ward tests, finding the ordinance content-neutral and serving substantial governmental interests in aesthetics and safety. While acknowledging issues regarding the ordinance's selective application raised by the Board, the court ultimately granted the Village's cross-motion for summary judgment, denied the Board's motion, and dismissed the complaint, declining to enjoin enforcement based on the record.

First AmendmentCommercial SpeechSign OrdinanceMunicipal OrdinanceConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentFreedom of SpeechContent NeutralityAesthetic InterestPublic Safety
References
10
Case No. ADJ8455911
Regular
Nov 20, 2013

SANDRA VACA vs. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.,, SCHOOL DIST.,, CORVEL CORP.

This case concerns a dispute over the correct temporary disability indemnity rate for an applicant who worked as both a substitute teacher and a self-employed realtor. The applicant's net income as a realtor, after expenses, was used for the calculation, not her gross receipts. The Board rescinded the original award and found the applicant entitled to $395.93 per week in temporary disability, affirming the use of net income and earnings up to her last day of work. The issue of attorney's fees was deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability RateAverage Weekly EarningsSelf-Employed IncomeGross ReceiptsNet IncomeEarning CapacitySubstitute TeacherIndustrial InjuryGross Income
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2000

Goldberg v. Lorusso

Joel Goldberg, a realtor, sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a German Shepard named Lupo at the home of Robert and Rose LoRusso, which he was attempting to preview for sale. Despite a "Beware of Dog" sign, the property listing indicated the dog would be secured, yet Lupo was unrestrained due to a communication lapse. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no prior vicious propensities from the dog. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating Goldberg's complaint. The court ruled that a factual issue existed regarding the foreseeability of danger posed by an unrestrained dog in a house listed for public viewing by unaccompanied realtors, noting that the defendants usually secured the dog, indicating their awareness of potential issues.

Dog attackPersonal injuryNegligencePremises liabilityProperty owner liabilitySummary judgmentForeseeabilityRealtor injuryGerman ShepardAppellate review
References
8
Case No. ADJ19059640
Regular
Sep 24, 2025

DANIEL ANDRADE vs. MARPLES AND ASSOCIATES REALTOR, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal from an order setting a workers' compensation matter for trial. The applicant claimed discovery was incomplete, but the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm warranting removal, as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board stated that trial would provide an opportunity to create a complete record and address discovery issues. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceDiscoveryTrialAppeals Board
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15 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