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

Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD sued Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition over their sale of tree-shaped air fresheners. Plaintiffs own registered trademarks for their air fresheners. Applying the Polaroid factors, the Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion due to strong marks, striking product similarity, competitive proximity, and low buyer sophistication. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims and a determination that the case was not exceptional under the Lanham Act, was denied, as factual disputes regarding intent and willfulness remained for trial.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsLanham ActPunitive DamagesPost-Sale ConfusionTrade DressConsumer Protection
References
22
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04613
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

Kiskiel v. Stone Edge Management, Inc.

The injured plaintiff, Edward Kiskiel, a New York City sanitation worker, allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of wet paint in a parking lot. The defendant, Stone Edge Management, Inc., managed an adjoining condominium complex that had an easement over the parking lot. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, holding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence. The court found the condition was transient and not visible prior to the accident, and there was no evidence, only speculation, that the defendant created it. Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeHazardous ConditionParking Lot AccidentProperty ManagementAppellate ReviewNegligencePersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Booker v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems

Plaintiff Anthony Booker, a black employee of Budget Rent-A-Car in Nashville, alleges race discrimination and racial harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with retaliation. He claims General Manager Guy Grundman subjected him to severe verbal abuse, racial slurs, and disproportionately harsh treatment, leading to a demotion in January 1993. Booker further alleges he was denied a promotion in April 1993 and retaliated against with a negative performance evaluation and denial of an Airport Manager position after filing an EEOC charge. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Booker's claims of racial harassment and discrimination regarding his demotion may proceed, but his failure to promote, retaliation, and wage discrimination claims were dismissed.

Racial HarassmentRace DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentDemotionEmployment LawSupervisor LiabilityDisparate Treatment
References
49
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06033
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Matter of Bernal v. New York Apple Car Serv.

Claimant's spouse, a cab driver dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS), was fatally stabbed while working. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits. NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), disputed liability, contending the decedent was a black car operator, making the New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) responsible. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that the decedent was an independent livery driver, holding the ILDBF carrier liable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, rejecting the argument that the vehicle's affiliation with the NYBCOICF was determinative and relying on precedent set in _Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund_.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorFund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDispatch ServiceEmployer ResponsibilityVehicle Affiliation
References
1
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. State Office of Risk Management

Raul Sanchez was paralyzed and later died following a single-car accident while returning from work training. His widow, Twilah Sanchez, filed a workers' compensation claim, which the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) denied, asserting Raul was intoxicated. SORM secured a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing Sanchez lacked proof to show Raul was not intoxicated. Sanchez appealed, presenting lay and expert testimony to challenge the intoxication finding and the reliability of SORM's expert. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding Sanchez failed to provide evidence demonstrating Raul's blood alcohol content was below the legal intoxication limit of 0.08.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseSummary JudgmentRetrograde ExtrapolationBlood Alcohol ContentExpert TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTexas LawEmployment Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Adkins

Larry Adkins, an employee, sustained an injury on August 11, 2006, following a previous car accident injury in 2005. He filed a workers' compensation claim, which was initially denied by the TWCC. A jury in district court later found in favor of Adkins, determining he suffered a compensable injury and disability. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed, arguing legal insufficiency of evidence. The appellate court found Adkins failed to provide expert medical testimony to prove causation for the alleged aggravation of a preexisting condition. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling Adkins did not sustain a compensable injury or disability.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryDisabilityPreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyLegal SufficiencyCausationAggravation of InjuryLay TestimonyTexas Labor Code
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,138 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