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. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. 32,997
Regular Panel Decision

United Pacific Insurance Co. v. Zardenetta

United Pacific Insurance Company (Relator) filed a Writ of Mandamus to compel Judge Antonio A. Zardenetta (Respondent) to disqualify attorney Jack Latson and the firm of Flahive and Ogden from representing Josephine Saba Harfoush in an underlying suit. Harfoush's suit initially sought workers' compensation benefits after a fatal accident and later uninsured motorist benefits, evolving to claims of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and DTPA violations against United Pacific. The Relator argued Latson should be disqualified because he would be a material witness regarding defenses like accord and satisfaction and the effect of a previous release signed by Harfoush. The trial court initially disqualified Latson, then rescinded the order, but Relator re-urged the disqualification. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disqualify Latson and his firm, citing Disciplinary Rules 5-101 and 5-102 which address a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The court granted the writ, ordering the disqualification of Latson and his law firm.

Attorney DisqualificationWrit of MandamusEthical RulesConflict of InterestWitness-Advocate RuleDisciplinary Rule 5-102Professional ResponsibilityAbuse of DiscretionTrial CounselMaterial Witness
References
12
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
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. ADJ8290334
Regular
May 23, 2016

MARTHA GALVEZ vs. HEY BABY OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, rescinding a WCJ's order that continued a lien trial to obtain documents from the anti-fraud unit regarding a potential Labor Code section 4615 stay. The Board found that with the Department of Industrial Relations now publishing relevant documents online, discovery should be reopened for the parties to review these materials. This action aims to resolve the section 4615 issue efficiently and obviate the need for the WCJ's direct involvement with the anti-fraud unit. If a dispute persists after reviewing the online documents, parties can seek a new hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAnti-Fraud UnitLabor Code Section 4615Due ProcessWCJDepartment of Industrial RelationsLien ClaimantStay of LienIndicted Provider
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. 07-CR-14(S-1)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2014

United States v. Qualls

Thomas Qualls was found guilty by jury verdict on multiple counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice in 2008, and later pled guilty to failure to appear. During sentencing, Qualls objected to several enhancements to his offense level, including those for loss amount, sophisticated means, and leadership role, and sought a downward departure due to diminished mental capacity. The Court, presided over by Judge Dora L. Irizarry, denied all of Qualls's objections and requests for downward departure or variance. The Court affirmed that the application of the 2013 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual did not violate the ex post facto clause and that a Fatico hearing was unwarranted. Consequently, a sentence within the Guidelines range was imposed, totaling 150 months concurrently for fraud counts and 60 months consecutively for failure to appear.

Criminal FraudWire FraudMail FraudObstruction of JusticeFailure to AppearSentencing GuidelinesEx Post FactoDiminished Mental CapacitySophisticated MeansLeadership Role
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,382 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