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
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 13-19-00500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2021

Texas Auto Salvage, Inc., Gary Hack, and Daniel Hack v. D D Ramirez, Inc., Danny Ramirez Recycling, Inc., San Antonio Auto & Truck Salvage, Danny's Recycling & Precious Metals, LLC, Danny's Recycling, Inc., and Daniel Delagarza Ramirez

Appellants, Texas Auto Salvage, Inc., Gary Hack, and Daniel Hack (TASI), sued appellees, D D Ramirez, Inc., et al. (DDR), over a dispute regarding their neighboring metal recycling facilities in San Antonio. TASI alleged various claims including public and private nuisance, arguing DDR’s facilities were polluted and violated city ordinances, causing harm to TASI’s business and property. After a jury trial, the jury found against TASI on most claims, and the trial court granted DDR’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), issuing a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, TASI challenged the denial of injunctive relief and the JNOV on its public nuisance claim, as well as the exclusion of expert testimony and the factual insufficiency of evidence for its private nuisance claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that TASI lacked standing to bring its public and private nuisance claims as it failed to demonstrate a substantial special injury distinct from the public at large.

Public NuisancePrivate NuisanceStandingJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Injunctive ReliefMunicipal OrdinancesMetal Recycling FacilitiesEnvironmental RegulationsCode ViolationsBusiness Dispute
References
50
Case No. 03-15-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Elite Auto Body LLC, D/B/A Precision Auto Body Rey R. Hernandez Yesica Diaz And David Damian v. Autocraft Body Works, Inc., Now Known as Wasson Road Ventures, Inc. D/B/A Autocraft Bodywerks

The Appellants, Elite Auto Body LLC, Rey R. Hernandez, Yesica Diaz, and David Damian, are appealing a trial court's order that denied their Motion to Dismiss. This motion was filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) against claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Appellee Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by narrowly construing the TCPA, failing to recognize that their communications regarding business practices and employee recruitment are protected under rights of association and free speech. They also argue that Autocraft failed to provide sufficient 'clear and specific evidence' to establish a prima facie case for its claims, which is a requirement under the TCPA. Consequently, Appellants are seeking a reversal of the trial court's order, dismissal of Autocraft's claims, and an award for their attorneys' fees and expenses.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechAppellate ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. No. 14-07-01006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

MID-CONTINENT CAS. v. Global Enercom Mgmt.

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute between Mid-Continent Casualty Company (appellant insurer) and Global Enercom Management, Inc. (appellee insured). The dispute arose from a fatal accident involving subcontractor Allstates Construction Company employees on a cellular tower repair project in Arkansas, where a pulley system powered by a pick-up truck failed, causing three workers to fall to their deaths. Mid-Continent denied Global Enercom's request for defense and indemnity under Allstates' commercial general liability (CGL) and commercial auto policies, citing an auto exclusion and a contractual liability exclusion. The trial court granted Global Enercom's declaratory judgment motion, finding coverage. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.), affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the auto exclusion did not apply because the pick-up truck did not itself produce the injury (the defective rope did), and the contractual liability exclusion did not apply as the subcontract was deemed executed under Texas law prior to the accident, despite a delay in Global Enercom's signature.

Insurance Coverage DisputeCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Automobile PolicyAuto ExclusionContractual Liability ExclusionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewCausation in InsuranceInterpretation of Insurance Policies
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2002

Romano v. Curry Auto Group, Inc.

John Romano and other plaintiffs appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendants Curry Realty, LLC and Curry Auto Group, Inc. Romano had sustained personal injuries covered by workers' compensation from his employer Mohansic Corp.'s insurer. Plaintiffs alleged that Curry Realty and Curry Auto were alter egos of Mohansic Corp. and sought to pierce the corporate veil. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, citing the defendants' roles as an 'out-of-possession' landlord and a provider of dealer management services. The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the plaintiffs' own alter ego claim mandated that workers' compensation was their exclusive remedy, thereby barring the personal injury action.

Personal injuryWorkers' compensation exclusivityAlter ego doctrineCorporate veil piercingSummary judgmentAppellate procedureExclusive remedy
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07024
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Piorkowski v. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto

Claimant David J. Piorkowski suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2006 during his employment with Pat Forsha Truck & Auto, leading to surgeries and ongoing symptoms. In 2014, he filed a separate claim, alleging a new left knee injury while working for Wal-Mart, stemming from two incidents in September 2014 where he assisted customers. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the 2014 incidents constituted an exacerbation of his preexisting condition rather than a new injury, disallowing the claim. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, citing the Board's expertise in distinguishing between new injuries and exacerbations, and its authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the September 2014 incidents did not represent new injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law JudgePreexisting ConditionCausation DisputeMedical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentBoard Decision AffirmedIndustrial AccidentOrthopedic SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance dispute between Global Enercom Management, Inc. and Mid-Continent Casualty Company concerning coverage for workers who died after a fall from a cell tower. The accident involved a rope-and-pulley system powered by a pickup truck. The court analyzed two insurance policy exclusions: an 'auto-use' exclusion and a 'subsequent-to-execution' clause. The Texas Supreme Court held that the 'auto-use' exclusion in the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy precluded coverage, reversing the appellate court's decision on this point. However, the court affirmed that the 'subsequent-to-execution' clause in both the CGL and Commercial Auto Policy (CAP) did not bar coverage, as the subcontract was considered 'executed' prior to the incident, despite Global's delayed signature.

Insurance CoverageAuto Use ExclusionSubsequent-to-Execution ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Auto PolicyWorkers' CompensationCell Tower AccidentDeclaratory Judgment
References
22
Case No. 2017-08-0805
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2018

Simpson, William v. City Auto, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, employee William Simpson alleged a work-related injury due to excessive heat causing him to pass out and strike his head, which employer City Auto, LLC, contested as idiopathic. The trial court initially determined Simpson was likely to prevail, awarding medical and temporary disability benefits but denying attorney's fees, leading both parties to appeal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's finding of compensability, noting Dr. Al-Hamda's opinion linking the injury to the hot work environment and the lack of contradictory medical evidence. The Board also affirmed the denial of attorney's fees, citing the "extremely limited circumstances" required for such interlocutory awards. Ultimately, the trial court's order was affirmed in its entirety, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealIdiopathic FallHeat ExhaustionTraumatic Brain InjuryMedical CausationAttorney's FeesScope of EmploymentTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,396 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