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. 19-0791, 19-0792
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

in Re State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Todd Joseph Dauper

This case from the Supreme Court of Texas consolidates two petitions for writ of mandamus concerning underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance claims. Relators State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Terecina Shahan, and Todd Joseph Dauper sought to overturn trial court denials of their motions for bifurcated trials. The underlying suits, brought by real parties in interest Al Dodds and Alexander Nicastro, alleged only extracontractual violations of the Texas Insurance Code, seeking UIM benefits as damages, but did not include breach-of-contract claims. State Farm argued that an insured must first establish legal entitlement to policy benefits by proving the underinsured motorist's liability and damages in an initial "car crash" trial, even if only statutory claims are pleaded. The Court agreed, holding that such a showing is a prerequisite for recovering on Insurance Code claims when damages are predicated on policy benefits. It found that denying bifurcation was an abuse of discretion, citing the need to preserve judicial resources and prevent prejudice from the admission of settlement offers. The Court conditionally granted the petitions, directing the trial courts to bifurcate the trials.

Underinsured Motorist InsuranceInsurance Code ClaimsBifurcation of TrialsWrit of MandamusExtracontractual ClaimsPolicy BenefitsTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionTrial AbatementSettlement Offers
References
34
Case No. 2016-01683
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

Castro v. Malia Realty, LLC

Manuel Castro, a construction worker, and his wife sued Malia Realty, LLC, the construction site owner, for personal injuries after Castro allegedly fell from a scaffold. Malia Realty, LLC, then commenced a third-party action against Target Contracting, LLC, Castro's employer. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a unified trial, citing a perceived strict Second Department rule favoring bifurcation, and limited medical testimony regarding Castro's brain injuries during the liability phase. The jury found that Castro did not fall from a scaffold. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, set aside the verdict, and granted a new, unified trial, holding that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion. The court clarified that bifurcation is not absolutely required in the Second Department and that a unified trial was warranted here because the nature of Castro's injuries was inextricably intertwined with the issue of liability, making evidence of brain injuries probative as to how the incident occurred.

Personal InjuryBifurcated TrialUnified TrialLabor LawScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidence AdmissibilityJury Verdict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. ADJ9141320
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

, JOSE LUIS MUNOZ DAVILA, vs. , LOS ANGELES DODGERS; SEDGWICK, FIREMAN'S FUND, ESIS,

This case concerns a defendant, ACE USA, seeking removal to bifurcate the trial on the issue of jurisdiction for a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim. ACE argued it lacked due process because it wasn't adequately notified that all issues would proceed to trial. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, finding ACE failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the administrative law judge deferring the bifurcation decision. Commissioner Lowe dissented, believing ACE would be prejudiced by proceeding to trial on unprepared issues due to insufficient notice.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardACE USAJurisdictionDue ProcessMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementBifurcationLabor Code section 3600.5Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deblo, Inc. v. State

This case is an appeal from a trial court order granting a temporary injunction against appellants for maintaining a public nuisance at 166 West Mount Houston, Harris County, Texas. The trial court found appellants were using the property for prostitution and ordered it closed or a $5,000 bond posted. Appellants argued that padlocking premises is only permissible after a trial on the merits, not a temporary order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that an alternative (posting a bond) was offered and the injunction only prevented illegal use, not legitimate use of the property. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact regarding the property being used for prostitution.

Nuisance AbatementTemporary InjunctionPublic NuisanceProstitutionAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTrial Court OrderPadlocking OrderBond RequirementFactual Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. 98-03885
Regular Panel Decision

Authorlee v. Tuboscope Vetco International, Inc.

The appellants, who were settling plaintiffs in a mass tort silicosis case, sought to overturn the trial court's denial of their motion for new trial. They argued that their agreed judgment was void due to an undisclosed aggregate settlement and alleged fraud by their trial lawyers and the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court concluded that there was no actual fraud by the appellees as the appellants admitted a lack of reliance. Additionally, the court found no conspiracy to commit fraud in the litigation context. Finally, the court determined that the settlements were not aggregate settlements due to individual negotiations and offers, thus upholding the validity of the agreed judgment.

Aggregate SettlementFraud AllegationsMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductMass Tort LitigationSilicosis ClaimsSettlement AgreementsConspiracyReliance
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Pershing Construction Co.

Plaintiff, a structural iron worker, appealed from a judgment in favor of defendants after a jury trial and an order denying a new trial, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained from tripping on a loose board at a construction site. Defendants claimed the incident was staged, leading to a dispute over the admissibility of hospital records and injury evidence during the liability phase of the bifurcated trial. The trial court also erred in its jury instructions regarding defendants' responsibilities under Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court reversed the judgment and order, granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and directed that liability and damages issues be tried together due to being inextricably intertwined.

Personal InjuryNegligenceBifurcated TrialEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsLabor LawConstruction Site AccidentStructural Iron WorkerReversible ErrorNew Trial
References
5
Case No. NO. 14-19-00384-CV (Trial Court Cause No. 2018-40587)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2021

in the Interest of I.D.R., and A.B.R., Children

This appeal originates from a suit to establish a parent-child relationship concerning I.D.R. and A.B.R., initiated by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. The trial court entered a default judgment against Rejadia Rogers, the mother, for failing to appear, adjudicating issues of child support, custody, and access rights. Mother's motion for a new trial was subsequently denied. On appeal, Mother argued that her failure to appear was not intentional due to car trouble and medical complications, and she presented a meritorious defense. The appellate court, applying the Craddock test, found that Mother satisfied all three elements, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Default JudgmentParent-Child RelationshipChild SupportChild CustodyAccess RightsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseUnintentional Failure to Appear
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 14,334 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