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. 13-13-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law
References
12
Case No. 13-06-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments. Appellants (Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C., collectively "Texas Treasure") contested the trial court's decision in favor of appellee (Christus Spohn Health System d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, "Christus"). The dispute arose from medical expenses incurred by a seaman, Judy Ann Lanado, employed by Texas Treasure, who suffered severe brain damage after surgery at Christus. Texas Treasure sought to avoid liability for the entire hospital bill and claimed equitable subrogation. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Texas Treasure's motion for summary judgment on its plea in intervention but reversed the granting of Christus's motions for summary judgment on its counterclaim and Texas Treasure's plea in intervention, remanding for further proceedings to determine negligence and attributable expenses.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSworn AccountVerified DenialDue ProcessEquitable SubrogationMaintenance and CureMaritime LawAlien CrewmanHospital Expenses
References
52
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This case involves five pro se plaintiffs who filed a complaint against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), alleging constructive discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). IBM sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing charges with the EEOC. The court found that Kamalakar V. Narsule and Stephen M. Zick had not filed EEOC charges, leading to the dismissal of their claims. Erach Maneska Singpurwala's claim was dismissed due to untimeliness and issue preclusion, as he had previously sued IBM on the same facts. Michael John Shelpack's claim was also dismissed as untimely, having filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after his employment ended. Lastly, Peter J. Murphy's claim was dismissed because he had signed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue IBM for age discrimination, accepting a severance package. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against IBM for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEEOCRight to Sue LetterUntimely FilingWaiver of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActRes Judicata
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System

Appellants Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. appealed summary judgments in favor of Christus Spohn Health System regarding medical expenses for Judy Ann Lanado, a seaman who suffered severe brain damage. Christus sought payment based on a sworn account, a guarantee, and maritime maintenance and cure. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Christus's counterclaim, finding an ineffective sworn denial and Christus's lack of standing for the guarantee. It also found a material fact issue regarding the reasonableness of medical charges under maintenance and cure. The court affirmed the denial of equitable subrogation to appellants but remanded for a determination of Christus's potential negligence affecting the medical bill.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentMaintenance and CureEquitable SubrogationSworn AccountDue ProcessAlien CrewmanMedical ExpensesTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
52
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. 2020-03-0939
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2021

Day, Misti v. Great Salons of Knoxville, Inc.

Misti G. Day sustained two work-related injuries in 2018 and 2019. Her initial petition for benefits was involuntarily dismissed without prejudice in December 2019 due to failure to prosecute. The employer subsequently ceased voluntary workers' compensation benefits in March 2020. Employee Day filed a second petition for benefits on April 30, 2020, seeking additional medical treatment for her injuries. The trial court determined that the employee's second petition was timely filed and that she was likely to prevail regarding her request for additional medical benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing the second petition was untimely. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s determinations and remanded the case.

Timeliness of PetitionInvoluntary DismissalStatute of LimitationsMedical Benefits DisputeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInterlocutory AppealRemandRule 41.02Show Cause HearingWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,705 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