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. 11-10-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

CareFlite v. Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

CareFlite initiated a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc. to disclose information under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). Rural Hill counterclaimed, requesting a declaratory judgment that it was not a governmental body subject to the TPIA. The trial court granted Rural Hill's motion for summary judgment and denied CareFlite's. On appeal, CareFlite challenged this ruling, arguing that Rural Hill was supported by public funds through non-arms-length contracts and provided services traditionally offered by governmental bodies. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the contractual relationships between Rural Hill and the cities constituted arms-length transactions, thereby exempting Rural Hill from the TPIA's "governmental body" definition. The court also upheld the propriety of Rural Hill's declaratory judgment counterclaim.

Texas Public Information ActGovernmental BodyPublic FundsArms-length TransactionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmergency Medical ServicesNonprofit CorporationContract Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff Landesbank Baden-Württemberg sued Goldman Sachs & Co. and TCW Asset Management Company for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, arising from the devaluation of a mortgage-backed Credit Default Obligation (CDO) called Davis Square Funding VI. Landesbank alleged that Goldman concealed the poor quality of underlying mortgages and used fraudulently obtained credit ratings, while TCW failed to conduct proper due diligence. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims. It found that Landesbank failed to plead fraud with particularity, establish a special relationship for negligent misrepresentation in an arm's-length transaction, or support an unjust enrichment claim given the existence of a valid contract.

Motion to DismissCommon Law FraudNegligent MisrepresentationUnjust EnrichmentMortgage-Backed SecuritiesCredit Default Obligation (CDO)Securities FraudPleading RequirementsJustifiable RelianceArm's-Length Transaction
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Enron Corp. Securities, Derivative & ERISA Lit.

This case is a putative class action brought by purchasers of Enron Corporation's publicly traded equity and debt securities, including the Regents of the University of California and the Washington State Investment Board. The plaintiffs allege widespread securities violations against Enron and numerous 'secondary actors,' such as accounting firms, law firms, and investment banks. The core accusation centers on an 'enormous Ponzi scheme' designed to artificially inflate Enron's revenues, conceal massive debts, and maintain its stock price and credit rating through fraudulent, non-arm’s-length transactions with Enron-controlled entities and improper accounting practices. The secondary actors are implicated for their alleged knowing participation in this scheme, driven by financial gain through lucrative fees and investment opportunities. The court ruled on motions to dismiss filed by these secondary actors, denying most motions but granting some in full or in part, allowing the case to proceed against many key defendants.

Securities FraudClass ActionPonzi SchemeEnron ScandalCorporate FraudAccounting FraudInvestment Banking MisconductLaw Firm LiabilityAuditor MalpracticeOff-Balance Sheet Entities
References
148
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CareFlite v. Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc.

CareFlite sought a writ of mandamus against Rural Hill Emergency Medical Services, Inc. to compel the production of information under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). Rural Hill counterclaimed, seeking a declaration that it is not a governmental body subject to the TPIA and requesting attorney's fees. The trial court granted Rural Hill's motion for summary judgment and denied CareFlite's. CareFlite appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Rural Hill because it contended Rural Hill was supported by public funds and thus subject to the TPIA. The appellate court analyzed the definition of 'governmental body' under the TPIA, specifically whether Rural Hill was 'supported in whole or in part by public funds,' and determined that the contracts between Rural Hill and the cities constituted arms-length transactions. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Rural Hill was not a governmental body under the TPIA and thus not obligated to provide the requested information.

Texas Public Information ActGovernmental Body DefinitionPublic FundsArms-Length TransactionSummary JudgmentWrit of MandamusDeclaratory Judgment ActNon-profit CorporationEmergency Medical ServicesContract Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Duracell U.S.A.

This worker's compensation case addresses whether an employee's claim is barred by Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 13.01, the compulsory counterclaim rule. Duracell, the employer, initially sued Nellie Walker to determine disability benefits for a left wrist injury. Walker counter-complained for injuries to both arms and hands, but later voluntarily dismissed claims for her right arm and other injuries, settling only for the left hand. The day after the circuit court judgment, Walker filed a new complaint in Chancery Court seeking benefits for alleged neck and right arm injuries stemming from the same January 21, 1983 incident. The court affirmed the dismissal of Walker's second complaint, holding that all claims arising from the same transaction should have been asserted in the initial circuit court action, and her new claim is consequently barred.

Worker's CompensationCompulsory CounterclaimRule 13.01Claim PreclusionRes JudicataTennessee Rules of Civil ProcedureBradley CountyEmployment LawDisability BenefitsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. ADJ 7906635, ADJ 7906741
Regular
May 02, 2016

LINDA ARMS vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration. The County sought to overturn an award regarding the reasonable cost of two medical-legal reports from Dr. Ali Mostafavi. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, who found the attested hours and resulting fee schedule calculations for the reports to be reasonable. The County failed to demonstrate that the time spent by Dr. Mostafavi on the reports was unreasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCounty of KernLinda ArmsADJ 7906635ADJ 7906741Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFindings Orders and AwardQualified Medical ExaminerQME
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pugliese v. Remington Arms, Inc.

The claimant, employed by Remington Arms, Inc. for over three decades, sought workers' compensation benefits, citing severe depression and anxiety stemming from alleged harassment and falsification of attendance records by a supervisor. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied further adjournments for an independent medical examination (IME) report and cross-examination of the treating psychologist, determining the depression to be an occupational disease. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this, reclassifying it as a compensable accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the use of hearsay evidence, the preclusion of their IME report, and the denial of their right to cross-examine the claimant's treating psychologist. The appellate court found sufficient corroboration for the hearsay evidence and upheld the IME report's preclusion due to the carrier's delays. However, the court reversed the denial of cross-examination, stating that the absence of the IME report did not negate the carrier's right, especially given their dispute on causal relationship. Consequently, the case was reversed and remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

DepressionAnxietyWorkplace HarassmentAttendance Records FalsificationIndependent Medical ExaminationIME Report PreclusionRight to Cross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceCorroborating EvidenceOccupational Disease
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2013

Beckman v. Keybank, N.A.

Plaintiffs, former Relationship Managers for KeyBank, filed a class and collective action claiming unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA and various state laws. After extensive arm's-length negotiations and mediation, the parties reached a $4.9 million settlement. The Court granted final approval of both the class action and FLSA settlements, finding them procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate. Additionally, the Court approved attorney's fees of $1,617,000, reimbursement of litigation expenses totalling $38,928, and service awards for the named plaintiffs, recognizing the complexities, risks of litigation, and the positive class reaction to the settlement.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime WagesClass Action SettlementFLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)Misclassification (Exempt Employees)Rule 23 Class CertificationCollective Action (29 U.S.C. § 216(b))Attorney's FeesService AwardsSettlement Approval
References
89
Showing 1-10 of 681 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