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

Katherine D. Chaney v. Team Technologies, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an employer is liable for workers' compensation benefits when an employee suffers a non-work-related medical emergency and the employer does not use an acquired automated external defibrillator (AED). The court clarified the "emergency rule," stating that an employer's duty is to provide reasonable medical assistance, not all possible aid. The ruling concluded that employers have no statutory or common law duty to use an AED to assist an employee, aligning this with existing precedents for businesses and patrons. Consequently, the employer, Team Technologies, Inc., was not found liable for the employee's brain injury, and the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was reversed.

Workers' CompensationAED UseEmployer LiabilityMedical EmergencyDuty to AidReasonable Medical AssistanceBrain InjuryInterlocutory AppealTennessee LawCommon Law
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. 03-15-00528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2015

the Texas Education Agency and Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in His Official Capacity v. Academy of Careers and Technologies, Inc. D/B/A Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) and Commissioner Michael Williams, acting as appellants, sought to revoke the charter of appellee Academy of Careers and Technologies Charter School (ACT) following three consecutive years of unacceptable financial and academic accountability ratings. ACT challenged this action, alleging violations of its substantive and procedural due process rights, an unconstitutional taking of its property, and ultra vires actions by the Commissioner. The district court denied TEA's plea to the jurisdiction and granted ACT's motion for a temporary injunction, allowing ACT to remain open pending a full trial on the merits, citing significant constitutional questions.

Education LawCharter SchoolTexasDue ProcessProperty RightsInjunctionSovereign ImmunityAccountability RatingsUltra ViresAdministrative Law
References
68
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 01-11-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Aspen Technology, Inc., and David Wood Woodruff v. Hank W. Harrity

This case involves an appeal by Aspen Technology, Inc. and David Woodruff from a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against Hank W. Harrity. Harrity, a former employee, sued Aspen Technology and Woodruff for unpaid commissions, arguing the arbitration clause in his employment contract was illusory due to a unilateral modification provision and that his tort claims against Woodruff were not covered. The appellate court analyzed the contract's language, concluding that the arbitration provision was not illusory because modifications required mutual agreement. Furthermore, it determined that Harrity's tort claims against Woodruff, acting as an agent of Aspen Technology, fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract ValidityIllusory PromiseEmployment LawMotion to CompelAppellate ReviewFederal Arbitration ActAgent LiabilityTort ClaimsContract Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of El Paso, Mayor Oscar Leeser, City Representatives Emma Acosta, Carl L. Robinson, Michiel R. Noe, Courtney C. Niland, Ann Morgan Lilly, Larry Romero, Claudia Ordaz and Lily Limon v. Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr.

Plaintiffs Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. and Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. sued the City of El Paso, its Mayor, and City Council after the City awarded a bid contract for a water blasting unit to Team Eagle, Inc., instead of to Waterblasting Technologies. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the contract was void and an injunction preventing its performance, alleging violations of Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Government Code. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and lack of standing, which the trial court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the court concluded that while Section 252.061 waived the City's governmental immunity for injunctions, the contract's full performance rendered the plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. Additionally, Waterblasting Technologies, Inc. lacked standing as a bidder because the contract was for equipment, not 'construction of public works.' Thomas G. Wicker, Jr. had standing as a property tax-paying resident. The court also dismissed ultra vires claims against City Officials, as these only allow prospective relief, and the contract was already performed. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed all claims against the City, Mayor, and City Council.

Governmental immunitySubject-matter jurisdictionStandingMootnessUltra vires actsBid contractPublic worksTexas Local Government CodeInterlocutory appealDeclaratory judgment
References
70
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. 222 AD2d 184
Regular Panel Decision

Nuzzo v. Griffin Technology Inc.

Plaintiffs Karen L. Patzer and Patricia E. Nuzzo, employees of Syracuse University (SU), were injured while operating a cash register manufactured by Griffin Technology Incorporated (Griffin). SU, contractually an additional insured under Griffin's liability policy with Federal Insurance Company (Federal), sought coverage after being impleaded by Griffin. Federal retroactively added SU as an additional insured but subsequently disclaimed coverage based on an employer's liability exclusion. The court ruled Federal's four-month delay in disclaiming coverage to SU was untimely, making the exclusion inapplicable. Consequently, the antisubrogation rule required dismissal of Griffin's third-party actions against SU, and SU's counterclaims for breach of contract were dismissed as moot.

Untimely DisclaimerAdditional InsuredEmployer's Liability ExclusionAntisubrogation RuleContractual Duty to InsureRetroactive CoverageSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndemnificationContribution
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,229 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