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

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. 12-09-00390-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC v. Image Solutions, Inc.

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC (Trussell) appealed the denial of their motion for sanctions against Image Solutions, Inc. (Image). The underlying dispute originated from a worker's injury, where Image sought workers' compensation coverage through a policy procured by Trussell, which was subsequently denied due to the insurer's insolvency. Image then filed third-party claims against Trussell for negligence and breach of contract, leading Trussell to counterclaim for sanctions. Despite both parties acknowledging the necessity of an evidentiary hearing for the sanctions motion, none was conducted. The appellate court determined that Trussell waived its right to sanctions by failing to secure an evidentiary hearing and by participating in a non-evidentiary one. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the sanctions motion was affirmed.

SanctionsSummary JudgmentEvidentiary HearingWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
19
Case No. 13-08-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Mitch Burkhart and Christine Burkhart v. Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc. and Concentra Integrated Services, and rgv/nueces Rehabilitation D/B/A Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy

Mitch Burkhart sustained a foot and ankle injury while training for his employer, Verizon Communications. Verizon's workers' compensation claims were administered by Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc., who, along with Concentra Integrated Services, arranged a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) for Burkhart with RGV/Nueces Rehabilitation d/b/a Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy. The Burkharts alleged that the FCE aggravated Mitch's injury, causing permanent damage. They sued Sedgwick, Concentra, and Innovative, claiming negligence, civil conspiracy, assault, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed the case against Innovative for an inadequate expert report and granted summary judgment to Sedgwick and Concentra, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mitch's aggravation injury was an 'extension injury' covered by the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA.

Workers' CompensationFunctional Capacity EvaluationExclusive RemedyAggravation InjurySummary JudgmentMedical Expert ReportHealth Care LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 01-07-00999-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2010

El Paso Field Services Management, Inc. v. Ernesto Lopez and Georgia Lopez

Ernesto and Georgia Lopez sued El Paso Field Services Management, Inc. for personal injuries arising from a work-related incident. A jury found El Paso 80% negligent and Mr. Lopez 20% negligent. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. El Paso appealed, raising issues concerning the 'borrowed employee' doctrine, proximate cause, and entitlement to a credit for workers' compensation benefits. The Lopezes cross-appealed regarding the sufficiency of evidence for Mr. Lopez's 20% negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment on all points, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence for the jury's findings and declining to alter the collateral-source rule.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentNegligenceBorrowed Employee DoctrineProximate CauseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCollateral Source RuleAppellate ReviewJury FindingsContract Law
References
18
Case No. 3-91-200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1992

McCelvey Jones v. Barry Couch, Anco Insurance Services of Texas, Inc., Anco Insurance Services of Bryan/College Station, Inc., Anco Insurance Services of Houston, Inc. & Anco Insurance Managers, Inc.

McCelvey Jones sued Barry Couch and Anco Insurance Services of Texas, et al., for tortious interference with a contract and a business relationship related to Jones's role as agent of record for King's Daughters Hospital and underwriter Myron F. Steves and Company. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Couch's alleged tortious interference with a business relationship. Specifically, there was conflicting evidence about Couch's role and influence as a Board of Trustees member and chairman of an insurance committee, and whether his actions constituted 'malice' in the legal sense, defined as wrongful conduct without justification. The court highlighted a fact question regarding whether Couch violated the Hospital's by-laws by acting in a matter where he had a financial interest. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Tortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentBusiness RelationshipContract InterferenceMaliceAgencyInsuranceTexas Court of AppealsFactual DisputeRemand
References
9
Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Employers Casualty Company Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Genesys Cost Management Systems, Inc. Corporate Systems, Ltd. Employers National Risk Management Services, Inc. And Havis Wayne Dortch v. Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund El Paso I.S.D. Irving I.S.D. Hico I.S.D. And Aransas Pass I.S.D.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faulk Management Services v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Faulk Management Services initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it had a duty to indemnify and defend Lufkin Industries, Inc. under a written agreement. This arose from an underlying personal injury lawsuit filed by Alta V. Harrison, a Faulk employee, against Lufkin for an on-the-job injury. The trial court granted Lufkin's motion for summary judgment, compelling Faulk to indemnify and defend. Faulk appealed, arguing the agreement failed the express negligence test and the workers' compensation bar. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the contract's terms sufficiently met both legal requirements.

IndemnityDeclaratory JudgmentExpress Negligence RuleWorkers Compensation BarContract InterpretationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceThird-Party Liability
References
6
Case No. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,327 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