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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Case No. 10-17-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Estate of Miriam Mae Pharris

Kathy Roux appealed the trial court's decisions regarding the estate of Miriam Mae Pharris. Roux, who previously represented Dennis Pharris, sought attorney's fees from the estate for services rendered to Dennis and also filed an application for funeral and burial expenses on behalf of Knorr, whom she did not represent. The trial court denied her application for attorney's fees, finding she was not entitled to compensation from the estate and that her filings were groundless and in bad faith. The court subsequently sanctioned Roux $6,800 in attorney's fees for Ford, the estate's administrator, and an additional $2,500 to deter future groundless filings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Roux's attorney's fees, imposing sanctions, and setting the supersedeas bond.

Estate AdministrationAttorney SanctionsAppellate ProcedureProbate LitigationFrivolous FilingsAttorney's Fees DisputeAbuse of DiscretionTexas Estates CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRules of Civil Procedure
References
45
Case No. 04-06-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2008

Sylvia Casas, Ind. Substantively Consolidated Bankruptcy Estates of Fountain View, Inc. as Successor to Summit Care Corporation, Summit Care Texas, L.P. D/B/A Comanche Trail Nursing Center and Summit Care Management Texas and Robert Gundling, Ind. v. Rosamarie Paradez, as the Administrator and Heir at Law of the Estate of Tranquilino Mendoza

This case involves a medical malpractice survival action initiated by Rosamarie Paradez, daughter of the deceased Tranquilino Mendoza, against Sylvia Casas, Robert Gundling, and the consolidated bankruptcy estates of Fountain View, Inc. (successor to Summit Care Corp. and Summit Care Texas, L.P., operators of Comanche Trail Nursing Center). Mendoza, an 81-year-old nursing home resident, suffered severe injuries after being beaten by a violent roommate, allegedly due to the appellants' negligence. The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the denial of new trial motions, sufficiency of damages, excessive awards, and the application of damages caps. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the damages awarded for pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment, and finding no error in the application of the damages cap or the finding of negligence against Gundling.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePersonal InjurySurvival ActionAppellate ReviewJury ArgumentDamages CapFactual SufficiencyMental AnguishPhysical Impairment
References
35
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Toribio

The case involves an uncontested proceeding for an administrator to resign and for a successor to be appointed. The initial administrator, Jennifer, wishes to resign from her role in the estate of her three-year-old sister, Jannin, who died tragically. She requests the court appoint their father, Domingo Toribio, as the new administrator. The primary legal question addressed by Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen is whether Mr. Toribio, who only speaks, reads, and writes in Spanish, is qualified to serve as a fiduciary under SCPA 707 (2), which allows a court discretion to declare a person unable to read and write English ineligible. The court examines the legislative intent, relevant case law, and societal changes regarding disability and non-English-speaking populations, particularly in New York City. The opinion concludes that English language competence should not be a prerequisite for fiduciary status unless no reasonable accommodations are possible, and grants the application for Jennifer's resignation and Domingo Toribio's appointment, noting he and his counsel have established satisfactory communication.

Estate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFiduciary AppointmentLanguage BarrierEnglish ProficiencySCPA 707 (2)Multilingual SocietyJudicial DiscretionCivil RightsAccess to Justice
References
12
Case No. 14-06-00325-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2007

Daniel Antonio Aguirre v. Dora G. Vasquez

This case involves an appeal concerning a multi-vehicle collision during a dust storm that resulted in fatalities and injuries to employees and a passenger of Systems Painters, Inc. The injured parties and families of the deceased received workers' compensation benefits and subsequently sued multiple entities, including the estate of their own driver, Jose Ernesto Aguirre. The appellate court addressed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, specifically examining the application of the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy defense and claims of gross negligence and ordinary negligence. The court affirmed summary judgment on most claims but reversed and remanded the passenger/father's (Daniel Antonio Aguirre) negligence claim against Ernesto's estate for trial.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourse and Scope of EmploymentJudicial AdmissionQuasi-AdmissionNegligence ClaimWrongful Death
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estate of Bruce v. City of Middletown

This opinion addresses motions concerning a third-party complaint in an action brought by the Estate of Jimmy Lee Bruce under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims. The original suit alleged wrongful death and negligence against The City of Middletown, its Police Department, and two officers, following an incident where Mr. Bruce died after being placed in a chokehold by an officer. The City of Middletown filed a third-party complaint against Middletown Movie Center, Inc., seeking contribution and later moved to amend it to include indemnification. The central issue was the applicability and exercise of pendent party (now supplemental) jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for claims against the Movie Center. The court determined that § 1367 applied to the third-party complaint and that exercising supplemental jurisdiction was warranted due to the common nucleus of operative facts and considerations of judicial economy. Consequently, the court denied Movie Center's motion to dismiss and granted the City of Middletown's motion to amend its third-party complaint.

Supplemental JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionSection 1983Wrongful DeathNegligenceThird-Party ComplaintContributionIndemnificationJudicial Improvements Act of 1990Federal Courts
References
13
Case No. 10-14-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Thomas H. Sinclair v. Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez, Individually, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful death and survivorship action. Appellant Thomas H. Sinclair challenges the verdict in favor of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez. Fernando Ramirez died after an altercation at Sinclair's cabaret, following heavy drinking. The jury found Sinclair partly responsible, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the appellees failed to present legally sufficient causation evidence directly connecting Sinclair’s purported negligence with the decedent’s death due to the lack of expert medical testimony ruling out other plausible causes.

NegligenceProximate CauseWrongful DeathSurvivorship ActionExpert TestimonyMedical CausationBlunt Force Head InjuriesAlcohol IntoxicationAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency
References
37
Case No. NO. 14-22-00879-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

Lasonthia Sandles, Individually as as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Rollins v. Deanna Louise Laskoskie, as Administrator of the Estates of George Delbert Laskoskie, Sr., and Louise Clymer Laskoskie

Lasonthia Sandles appealed a no-evidence summary judgment in her claims against Deanna Louise Laskoskie, administrator of the estates of George and Louise Laskoskie, stemming from the fatal injury of Christine Rollins. Rollins, an in-home caregiver for the Laskoskies, died after being attacked by animals on their property, with conflicting theories on whether dogs initiated the attack before feral hogs. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Sandles's expert report on dog involvement was conclusory and lacked scientific basis. The court found insufficient evidence, beyond mere surmise, to establish causation by the dogs for Sandles's claims of strict liability, negligent handling, or premises liability. The judgment highlighted that abundant evidence pointed towards wild hogs as the primary cause of Rollins's death.

Summary Judgment AppealNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentExpert Testimony ReliabilityConclusory EvidenceCausation ElementStrict Liability ClaimNegligent Handling ClaimPremises Liability ClaimAnimal Attack LitigationFeral Hog Attack
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 14,826 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