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. ADJ9842283
Regular
Aug 26, 2016

ALBERT LIU vs. METIS TPS, LLC, ICW GROUP INSURANCE OF THE WEST

The applicant, Albert Liu, filed a Petition for Removal after the administrative law judge took the matter off calendar. However, Liu subsequently filed a Request to Withdraw his Petition for Removal, stating that the parties had reached a settlement via Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalDismissalCompromise and ReleaseWithdraw PetitionOff CalendarAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetis TPS LLCICW Group InsuranceAlbert Liu
References
0
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. 01-02-01007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Sheldon A. Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Inc

This case addresses the interpretation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the scope of statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit for subcontractors. The appellant, Sheldon A. Etie, was injured by an employee of Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, while working on a construction site. Etie received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a negligence suit against Walsh & Albert. The central question was whether the general contractor's workers' compensation policy, which covered all subcontractors and their employees, extended immunity to lower-tier subcontractors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and subsequent immunity from suit extend throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by a single workers' compensation insurance policy provided by the general contractor.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityStatutory Employer DoctrineSubcontractor CoverageExclusive Remedy ProvisionFellow Servant ImmunitySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code InterpretationConstruction Site InjuryTiered Subcontractor LiabilityIndependent Contractor Status
References
5
Case No. 14-12-00831-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2014

Zhi Jie Pan v. Wei Liu, Haitao Zhuang and Yanan Yu

Zhi Jie Pan purchased property in Houston in 2006. In 2010, Wei Liu defrauded Pan into transferring the property title to Liu, who then sold it to Haitao Zhuang and Yanan Yu (the Purchasers) for significantly less than its market value. Pan sued Liu for fraud (resulting in a default judgment) and the Purchasers for conversion of personal property and to void the deed, claiming they were not bona fide purchasers. The jury found the Purchasers converted personal property and were bona fide purchasers for value, but the trial court disregarded the conversion finding due to insufficient evidence of demand for return. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury instruction on "value" and affirming the disregard of the conversion finding.

Real PropertyFraudConversionBona Fide PurchaserJury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas LawProperty DisputeDamages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2005

Albert v. Williams Lubricants, Inc.

Plaintiff Charles J. Albert, Jr. was injured in December 1997 when a ladder slid while he was installing lubrication equipment at a dealership owned by Northgate Ford, Inc., for which his employer, Midstate Fuel Storage Systems, was contracted by Williams Lubricants, Inc. Albert and his wife sued alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim and Northgate's cross-claim for indemnification but denied dismissal of claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The appellate court found that the plaintiff's misuse of the ladder, which was deemed an adequate safety device, was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thus reversing the lower court's partial denial of summary judgment for the defendants. Consequently, all claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence were dismissed, and the lower court's decision was modified and affirmed.

Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawProximate CauseMisuse of EquipmentConstruction SafetyIndemnificationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 14-14-00979-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

in Re Albert Ortiz

This document is a response to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Albert Ortiz. Ortiz sought to overturn a trial court's order that limited the scope of a retrial to specific contract and judicial foreclosure issues, arguing for a broader remand that would allow him to introduce new claims. The respondents, PNC, N.A. and Home Loan Services, Inc. (collectively

Mandamus ProceedingLimited Remand ScopeLaw of the Case DoctrineBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosureSummary Judgment MotionTort ClaimsAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureForeclosure Dispute
References
25
Case No. M2013-02838-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2015

State of Tennessee v. Heng Lac Liu

The Defendant, Heng Lac Liu, appealed his conviction for four counts of sexual battery by a Davidson County jury. On appeal, he contended that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence and excluded defense evidence regarding the victim's bias and credibility, thereby violating his right to confront his accuser. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the trial court erred in admitting certain hearsay statements without proper jury instruction and in failing to determine the admissibility of non-Rule 412 evidence from a psychological report. Concluding that the cumulative effect of these errors warranted a new trial, the court reversed the trial court's judgments and remanded the case for a new trial on the charges of sexual battery.

Sexual BatteryHearsay EvidencePrior Consistent StatementsVictim CredibilityCross-examinationConfrontation ClauseTennessee Rule of Evidence 412Rape Shield LawCumulative ErrorAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. CV-24-1475
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Belcher

Claimant Albert Belcher, a security director, sustained a work-related back injury. Following his retirement, he engaged in a private investigation business but failed to disclose this activity during medical examinations related to his workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to material misrepresentation and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties, including permanent disqualification from indemnity benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation, citing substantial evidence. However, it reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification, deeming it disproportionate given that the claimant eventually disclosed his work activities to the Board and cooperated during hearings.

Workers' Compensation LawMisrepresentationFraudDisability BenefitsDisqualificationWage ReplacementAppellate ReviewDue ProcessIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating Physician
References
28
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06622 [243 AD3d 923]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

People v. Jia Xi Liu

This case concerns an appeal by Jia Xi Liu from a judgment convicting him of several offenses, including criminally negligent homicide and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, following a nonjury trial. The Supreme Court, Kings County, had sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to various terms of imprisonment. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction for criminally negligent homicide, finding the evidence legally sufficient and the verdict not against the weight of the evidence. However, the court identified an illegal sentence for criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, as a class A misdemeanor received an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 1/2 to 3 years, exceeding the statutory maximum of one year. Consequently, the judgment was modified by vacating that specific sentence, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing on that conviction.

Criminally Negligent HomicideCriminal MischiefFalse InstrumentFraudulent PracticesWorkers' Compensation FraudTax FraudForged InstrumentIllegal SentenceResentencingAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 160 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