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. 03-15-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2015

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Bob E. Woody initiated a lawsuit against J. Black's, L.P. and J. Black's, G.P., L.L.C. concerning a commercial sublease, seeking its termination. J. Black's counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that Woody had improperly rejected their lease extension and declared them in default. The trial court initially granted multiple partial summary judgments in favor of J. Black's, finding Woody in breach and dismissing all of his claims. On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed Woody's breach but remanded for a determination of whether J. Black's was ready, willing, and able to perform, a prerequisite for specific performance. Upon remand, the trial court found J. Black's met this condition and awarded specific performance of the sublease and attorney's fees to J. Black's.

Commercial LeaseSublease AgreementBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceAttorney's FeesTexas LawReal Estate DisputeLease ExtensionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The claimant, exposed to asbestos between 1965 and 1972, developed asbestosis, asbestos-related pleural disease, and lung cancer. His 1995 workers' compensation claim was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, which found his lung cancer causally related to asbestos exposure occurring before July 1, 1974, thus falling under the 'dust disease' rule requiring total disability for compensation. The claimant appealed, arguing lung cancer is not a dust disease. The appellate court reversed and remitted the decision, clarifying that while lung cancer itself is not a dust disease, the pre-1974 restriction applies if it's causally related to a dust disease like asbestosis. The court noted the Board failed to make a specific finding on this causal link.

asbestos exposurelung cancerasbestosisworkers' compensationdust diseasetotal disabilitypartial disabilitycausationremittalappellate review
References
9
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

James G. Black sued his employer, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NYMO), and his union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Union Local 310, along with their representatives, for alleged wrongs suffered in 1976. This is the third action (referred to as “Black III”) brought by Black against essentially the same defendants. The core issue revolves around Black's demotion from Chief Line Mechanic A-Hot Stick for allegedly failing to change his residence as a condition of promotion, a condition Black disputed. Black's grievance through the Union was denied, and his subsequent lawsuits (referred to as “Black I” and “Black II”) were largely unsuccessful. In “Black III”, Black alleged that the summary judgment in “Black I” was obtained by fraud through false statements in an affidavit by defendant Carl. The Court denied Black's motion to remand and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that Black had an opportunity to contest the alleged fraud in “Black I” and failed to do so. The Court also denied the defendants' request for costs, attorney's fees, and an injunction, but strongly advised Black against further litigation.

Fraud Upon The CourtRule 60(b)Summary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelDemotionGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2025

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Attorney Bernard S. Black was disbarred for professional misconduct. Serving as conservator for his sister, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, Black attempted to divert approximately $1 million from their mother's estate to himself and his children by deliberately withholding information from the Colorado Probate Court. The Colorado courts found he breached his fiduciary duties, engaged in deceptive conduct, and committed civil theft, imposing substantial surcharges and treble damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's findings that Black violated professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, making false statements to a tribunal, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Despite his claims of good faith and character evidence, the court found disbarment necessary due to the severe nature of his actions against a vulnerable family member.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsDisbarmentFiduciary Duty BreachConflict of InterestFraud and DeceitFalse Statements to TribunalConservatorshipEstate DiversionCivil Theft
References
2
Case No. 10-08-00038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2008

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Letha Black sued the City of Midlothian for property damage, alleging that the city's approval of a drainage detention pond led to increased water flow and erosion on her land. The City of Midlothian filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity from Black's Water Code violation claim and challenging her inverse condemnation claim. The appellate court held that the Legislature had not clearly and unambiguously waived governmental immunity for Water Code violations, thus barring Black's claim. Furthermore, the court found Black's inverse condemnation claim improperly pled because she failed to allege that the City knew the damage was substantially certain to result from its actions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Midlothian's plea to the jurisdiction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Black's suit against the city.

Governmental ImmunityWater Code ViolationInverse CondemnationPlea to the JurisdictionProperty DamageDrainage Detention PondMunicipal LiabilityWaiver of ImmunitySubject-Matter JurisdictionTexas Constitution
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This is a worker's compensation case where the petitioner, Belinda Ann Black, on behalf of herself and her deceased husband's estate and minor children, appealed the dismissal of her claim. Steven Black, the deceased, died while assisting his father-in-law, Roy Newman, a driver for the defendants, with an emergency repair of a disabled tractor-trailer in Kentucky. The trial court found that Steven Black was not an employee of the defendants due to the absence of an express or implied contract for hire or remuneration. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, concluding that the evidence supported the Chancellor's finding that no agreement for remuneration existed, which is essential for employee status under the Worker's Compensation Act. The court emphasized that gratuitously performed services do not create liability under the act.

Worker's Compensation ClaimEmployee StatusContract for HireRemuneration RequirementImplied AgreementFatal InjuryEmergency AssistanceTrial Court AffirmationStatutory InterpretationGratuitous Services
References
2
Case No. 03-09-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Appellees Lou Ann Smith and Karen E. Gravely sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia for Lou Ann, when a balcony designed by Black + Vernooy Architects (Appellants) collapsed due to construction defects. The Smiths sued the Architects for negligence, and a jury found them partially responsible. On appeal, the Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no contractual or common law duty to the Smiths as third-party visitors to the home. The Court emphasized that the Architects' contract with the homeowners, the Maxfields, explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' oversight role without granting control over construction methods. The Court declined to create a new common law duty for architects under these circumstances, citing the significant burden and the availability of recourse against the general contractor and subcontractor.

NegligenceArchitect LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryBalcony CollapseConstruction DefectsProportional ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsDuty of Care
References
36
Case No. 03-11-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves Lawrence Black's appeal after his truck was towed from a 7-Eleven parking lot. Black's fiancé, Althea Zuniga, the registered owner, initially won an unlawful towing claim in justice court, but the county court at law ruled in favor of the appellees. Black attempted to intervene and appeal nearly two months after the county court's final judgment, which had also denied Zuniga's motion for new trial. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, dismissed Black's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court held that Black's post-judgment attempt to intervene was barred as a matter of law, and he did not qualify under the 'virtual representation' doctrine, thus lacking standing to bring the appeal.

StandingInterventionFinal JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionVirtual RepresentationMotion to DismissTowing DisputeTrial Court JudgmentPost-judgment MotionsTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,088 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