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. ADJ10452924
Regular
Sep 05, 2018

ANN MALESZA vs. MARIN WALDORF SCHOOL, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over temporary disability indemnity for Ann Malesza, who claimed injury to her heart and psyche. The defendant sought to limit temporary disability to 4-6 weeks, challenging the reliance on Dr. Taylor's psychiatric evaluation. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's award of up to 104 weeks of temporary disability. This decision was based on Dr. Taylor's finding that the applicant was unable to work due to severe anxiety and phobia of returning to a stressful environment, which the Board deemed substantial evidence. The defendant's inability to provide a stress-free work environment does not relieve their liability for temporary disability.

WCABAnn MaleszaMarin Waldorf SchoolChurch Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ10452924Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJAOE/COEheart injury
References
0
Case No. 13-09-704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2011

Joyce Ann Allen v. Evangelina Allen

Joyce Ann Allen (mother) appealed an order granting Evangelina Allen (grandmother) joint managing conservatorship of her two granddaughters. Joyce Ann Allen raised two issues on appeal: lack of notice for the final hearing and Evangelina Allen's lack of standing to seek modification of the parent-child relationship. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that Joyce Ann Allen failed to overcome the presumption of proper notice regarding the final hearing and that Evangelina Allen had standing to file the suit because there was evidence that a modification order was necessary due to the children’s circumstances and because the parents had consented to temporary orders.

Custody DisputeGrandparent RightsManaging ConservatorshipParental RightsChild SupportDefault JudgmentNotice of HearingStandingAppellate ReviewTexas Family Law
References
24
Case No. 11-15-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Mary Ann Tarango, Surviving Spouse of Manual Tarango

This case involves an appeal from the judicial review of an administrative decision by a Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel had previously denied workers’ compensation death benefits to Mary Ann Tarango, surviving spouse of Manuel Tarango, due to alleged abandonment. The trial court subsequently reversed this administrative decision, ruling in favor of Mary Ann and entitling her to benefits. However, the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on Liberty Insurance Corporation to demonstrate abandonment, rather than on Mary Ann Tarango as the party seeking judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewBurden of ProofAbandonmentDeath BenefitsSpousal EligibilityTexas Labor CodeAppeals PanelTrial Court ErrorAdministrative Decision
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08397 [177 AD3d 864]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2019

Landaverde v. Lin-Ann Enters., Inc.

Plaintiff Olga D. Landaverde suffered injuries after slipping on ice on property owned by defendant Lin-Ann Enterprises, Inc. Having received Workers' Compensation benefits, she initiated a personal injury action against the defendant. Lin-Ann Enterprises, Inc. sought summary judgment, asserting it was an alter ego of Landaverde's employer, Logan Bus Co., Inc., and thus immune under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The appellate court found the defendant failed to demonstrate prima facie evidence of an alter ego relationship, specifically lacking proof that the entities operated as a single integrated unit or that one controlled the other's daily operations.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal Injury DamagesCorporate VeilIntegrated EntityDay-to-day Operations Control
References
6
Case No. 09-04-347 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2004

in Re Carol Ann Tarver Bullock, Matthew Bullock and C.A.T.B.

The relators, Carol Ann Tarver Bullock, Matthew Bullock, and C.A.T.B., petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Larry Thorne, presiding judge of the 317th District Court, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an order for Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The underlying dispute involved a bill of review granted to David Castro, which voided a prior termination of his parental rights and subsequently Matthew Bullock's adoption. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lower court had jurisdiction to grant the bill of review despite statutory limitations. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the statutory six-month limitation for challenging termination and adoption orders (Texas Family Code Ann. §§ 161.211 & 162.012) is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and was waived by the relators. Thus, the lower court did not abuse its discretion, and the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Parental Rights TerminationAdoption ProceedingsWrit of MandamusSubject Matter JurisdictionBill of ReviewAffirmative DefensesTexas Family LawStatutory LimitationsJudicial DiscretionAppellate Procedure
References
24
Case No. 02-S-01-9508-CV-00077
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1998

Patricia Love v. American Olean Tile Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Sue Ann Head, Director of the Divison of Workers' Compensation, State of Tennessee - Concurring/Dissenting

The concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Janice M. Holder addresses the majority's decision regarding workers' compensation. Justice Holder concurs with the majority's conclusion that permanent and total disability awards are payable until age sixty-five and that Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102(a) is applicable to the case. However, she dissents from the majority's analysis of apportionment, arguing it discourages hiring the handicapped and contradicts the legislative intent of the Second Injury Fund. She contends that an employer's liability should be capped at 400 weeks unless a subsequent injury independently caused permanent and total disability. Furthermore, Justice Holder disagrees with the majority's interpretation that subsections (a) and (b) of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 are not mutually exclusive, advocating for the exclusive application of subsection (a) in cases of prior injuries leading to total disability, and subsection (b) solely when an employee has received multiple permanent partial disability awards exceeding 100 percent in aggregate.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentSecond Injury FundStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityPrior InjuriesSubsequent InjuryTennessee LawJudicial Dissent
References
1
Case No. 03-09-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Black + Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy v. Lou Ann Smith Jimmy Jackson Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith And Karen E. Graveley

Appellees Lou Ann Smith and Karen E. Gravely sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia for Lou Ann, when a balcony designed by Black + Vernooy Architects (Appellants) collapsed due to construction defects. The Smiths sued the Architects for negligence, and a jury found them partially responsible. On appeal, the Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no contractual or common law duty to the Smiths as third-party visitors to the home. The Court emphasized that the Architects' contract with the homeowners, the Maxfields, explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' oversight role without granting control over construction methods. The Court declined to create a new common law duty for architects under these circumstances, citing the significant burden and the availability of recourse against the general contractor and subcontractor.

NegligenceArchitect LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryBalcony CollapseConstruction DefectsProportional ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsDuty of Care
References
36
Case No. W2004-00305-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

Donald Glidewell v. Ann Russell

Donald Glidewell initiated a detainer action against Ann Russell to regain possession of his property. Russell had been residing on the property with Glidewell's brother, Hugh, and continued to live there after Hugh's death, making significant improvements based on an alleged promise from Glidewell that she could stay for life. The trial court sided with Russell, applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, acknowledging Glidewell's promise but limiting its enforceability. The court determined that Russell's significant improvements were made before the clear promise and her reliance after the promise was for minor expenditures. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded, granting Glidewell possession while ordering a hearing to assess damages for Russell's expenditures made in reliance on Glidewell's promise after Hugh's death.

Promissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelDetainer ActionProperty RightsReal EstateImprovements to PropertyRelianceBreach of PromiseReversal and RemandAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 01-18-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

IPFS Corporation v. Sue Ann Lopez

IPFS Corporation appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed by Sue Ann Lopez. Lopez, a former IPFS sales representative, sought a declaratory judgment regarding non-solicitation agreements after joining a competitor. IPFS argued that Lopez's claim fell within the broad scope of their arbitration agreement, which covered 'all legal claims arising out of or relating to employment' with specific, narrow exclusions. The court analyzed the arbitration agreement's language, emphasizing the policy favoring arbitration and noting that Lopez's declaratory judgment, despite not seeking monetary damages, did not fall under the temporary equitable relief exception. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, compelling arbitration and dismissing the case.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to CompelDeclaratory JudgmentNon-Solicitation AgreementEmployment DisputeContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewEquitable ReliefScope of Arbitration
References
19
Case No. E2012-02392-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

Anne Payne v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Winston Carrol Payne, a railroad employee, developed lung cancer and sued CSX Transportation, Inc. under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to asbestos, diesel exhaust, and radioactive material exposure. After his death, his wife, Anne Payne, continued the lawsuit. The jury found CSX liable for negligence and negligence per se, initially awarding $8.6 million, but later amended it to $3.2 million following post-verdict judicial instruction regarding contributory negligence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed CSX's liability, confirming the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony on causation, but found the post-verdict jury instruction to be erroneous. The case was remanded for a new trial limited solely to determining damages, emphasizing that contributory negligence cannot reduce damages when negligence per se is established under FELA.

Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Railroad NegligenceOccupational Lung CancerAsbestos ExposureDiesel Exhaust ExposureRadioactive Material ExposureContributory NegligenceNegligence Per SeCausation (Toxic Tort)Expert Witness Admissibility
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 643 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