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. 01-11-00383-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2012

Mikuni Corporation v. Todd Foster and Candy Foster

This is a products liability lawsuit stemming from a motorcycle accident where Todd Foster was injured due to an allegedly defective carburetor. Appellees Todd and Candy Foster initially sued Classic Honda Mini Trails (CHT), which then filed third-party claims against Mikuni Corporation (Mikuni), the Japanese manufacturer of the carburetor. Mikuni appealed the trial court's denial of its special appearance, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas. The appellate court examined both specific and general jurisdiction, including the alter-ego theory between Mikuni and its subsidiary MAC, ultimately concluding that Mikuni had not purposefully availed itself of the Texas market and that MAC's contacts could not be imputed to Mikuni. The court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed the case against Mikuni for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionProducts LiabilityCorporate VeilAlter EgoMinimum ContactsDue ProcessStream of CommerceTexas Long-Arm StatuteForeign ManufacturerSubsidiary
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Foster v. Teacher Retirement System

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna Life Insurance Company and Aetna Health Management, LLC. Foster initially sued after Aetna denied coverage for her prescribed intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG). Her claims included breach of contract, bad faith, insurance code violations, deceptive trade practices, and a request for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that TRS and Aetna were protected by sovereign immunity, which had not been waived by legislation or provided for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Consequently, the court found no error in dismissing Foster's suit rather than abating it.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment Agency ImmunityInsurance DenialsHealth Benefit PlansDeclaratory Judgment ActionsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewAgent LiabilityContractual DisputesAppellate Procedure
References
26
Case No. 02-20-00224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2021

Regina Nachael Howell Foster v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. Trust 2005-HE1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-HE 1

Regina Nachael Howell Foster used her property as collateral for her husband's mortgage refinance loan. After her husband defaulted, she sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to invalidate the deed-of-trust lien and stop foreclosure. Her initial suit was unsuccessful. Following a foreclosure sale, Foster initiated a second lawsuit, challenging the foreclosure procedures and reasserting the invalidity of the deed-of-trust lien. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Foster challenged this summary judgment, primarily arguing that she did not receive the required notice of default under the Texas Property Code and that the lien was invalid under the Texas Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Foster's contentions regarding lien invalidity were without merit and that she was not entitled to notice of default.

MortgageForeclosureDeed of TrustHomesteadSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas ConstitutionProperty CodeNotice of DefaultLien Invalidity
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Foster Mold, Inc.

Foster Mold, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus against the trial court's order denying its motion to stay proceedings and refer a wrongful termination case to arbitration. Former employees Patricia and Ricardo Arellano had sued Foster Mold, Inc. after being discharged, despite signing an 'Employment and Arbitration Contract' that stipulated arbitration for employment-related disputes. The appellate court determined that under the Federal Arbitration Act, claims of unconscionability related to the contents of an arbitration contract, rather than its inducement, must be decided by an arbitrator. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to withdraw its denial, stay the proceedings, and refer the case to arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment ContractUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActWorkers' CompensationTexas LawMotion to StayAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1994

Foster v. Spevack

Richard Foster, an employee of Davis-Fetch Acoustical Corp., sustained injuries from a slip and fall on ice in a shopping center parking lot owned by Spevack and Statewide Plaza Shopping Centre. Spevack had contracted Fred Tontarski and Fabco for snow removal. Foster fell while attempting to urinate behind a building being renovated by Edward Irish Construction, Inc. and Davis-Fetch, having been directed there due to lack of bathroom facilities. Plaintiffs sued Spevack, Tontarski, and Fabco for negligence and later amended their complaint to include Labor Law violations. The court discusses various motions for summary judgment concerning Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, contribution, and indemnification among the parties. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, affirming in part, specifically addressing issues of standing under the Labor Law, breach of common-law duty by Davis-Fetch, and the requirement to allege specific safety regulations for Labor Law § 241 (6) claims.

Slip and FallIce HazardParking Lot AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)NegligenceIndemnificationContributionSummary Judgment
References
12
Case No. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, sued the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna, after her claim for intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) was denied. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the insurance code, and deceptive trade practices, along with a request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster appealed, arguing her declaratory judgment claim was not barred, legislative immunity was waived, the administrative procedures act provided for judicial review, and Aetna was not protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity applied to TRS and, by extension, to Aetna as its agent, and that Foster's claims did not fall under any exceptions for judicial review or waiver of immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment AgencyInsurance DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedures ActAgency AdjudicationJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
26
Case No. CV-24-1581
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of John Foster

Claimant John Foster was injured in May 2020, and the carrier accepted liability for his facial injuries. In 2023, Foster sought treatment for new conditions, including a traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome, which he linked to the original accident. The carrier argued the claim for these new conditions was time-barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28, but the Workers' Compensation Board disagreed, finding that initial medical records provided sufficient notice of a claim within the two-year period, documenting symptoms like lightheadedness and head pain immediately after the accident. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the two-year limitation does not preclude amending a timely claim to include consequential injuries.

Workers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsTimeliness of ClaimTraumatic Brain InjuryPost-concussion SyndromeConsequential InjuriesMedical RecordsNotice RequirementsAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06423 [188 AD3d 1378]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Foster v. FedEx Frgt. Inc.

The case involves an appeal by FedEx Freight Inc. from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that established claimant James Foster's average weekly wage using a 260 multiple. Foster was injured at work, and the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined his average weekly wage based on working "substantially the whole of the year," despite working 225 days, which is less than the traditional 234-day guideline. The Board affirmed, asserting its discretion to find that 225 days constituted "substantially the whole of the year" for a five-day worker under Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statute does not require a specific number of days for this finding and that the Board's calculation was supported by substantial evidence.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Substantially Whole of the Year260 MultipleWage CalculationAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewStatutory InterpretationFull-time EmploymentFive-day Worker
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 293 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