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
Jun 30, 1937

Cocke & Braden v. Ayer

The case concerns Ewell J. Ayer, who suffered personal injuries after being struck by a truck driven by Ed Foran. Ayer secured a judgment for $19,000 against Foran and his employers, Cocke & Braden. The Court of Civil Appeals, Seventh District, certified questions to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, primarily asking whether Foran was an independent contractor. The opinion details the contractual agreement and testimony regarding Cocke & Braden's control over Foran's work. After reviewing the facts and applicable precedents, the Commission of Appeals affirmed that Foran was, as a matter of law, an independent contractor. This decision rendered a second certified question immaterial.

Independent ContractorVicarious LiabilityTort LawCertified QuestionsTexas LawMaster-Servant RelationshipControl TestEmployment LawTrucking AccidentPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning product liability actions. The central issue was whether defendants could present evidence of the plaintiff's employer's actions (alteration, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the product) as contributing to the plaintiff's injuries, despite the employer's tort immunity under workers' compensation law. The Court affirmed that such evidence is admissible to establish cause-in-fact. However, the jury may not assess fault against the employer, ensuring the employer's immunity is maintained while allowing defendants to present a complete defense. The Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling in Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and deemed the second certified question unnecessary to address.

Products LiabilityComparative FaultEmployer ImmunityWorkers' CompensationCause-in-FactProximate CauseStrict LiabilityNegligenceCertified QuestionsTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Purkey v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed three certified questions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning the validity of household or family exclusion clauses in automobile insurance liability policies under Tennessee law and public policy. Petitioner Janice W. Purkey argued that these exclusions were void following amendments to the Tennessee Financial Responsibility Act and the abolition of intrafamily tort immunity. However, the Court referenced its prior consistent rulings upholding such clauses and emphasized Tennessee Code Annotated § 56-7-121, which explicitly permits contractual exclusions 'notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary.' The Court concluded that such exclusions do not violate Tennessee law or public policy, thereby answering the first certified question in the negative and declining to address the remaining questions.

Automobile InsuranceLiability CoverageHousehold Exclusion ClauseFamily Exclusion ClauseTennessee LawPublic PolicyFinancial Responsibility ActContract InterpretationIntrafamily Tort ImmunityCertified Questions
References
18
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 10 N.Y.3d 609 (2008), 891 N.E.2d 279, 861 N.Y.S.2d 246
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2008

Pachter v. BERNARD HODES

Elaine Pachter, a former vice-president for Bernard Hodes Group, Inc., whose compensation was commission-based, sued her former employer in federal court, alleging illegal deductions from her wages under Labor Law § 193. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning the scope of protections under article 6 of the Labor Law. The first question was whether an "executive" is considered an "employee" for purposes of Labor Law sections 190 and 193. The second question concerned when a commission is "earned" and becomes a "wage" in the absence of a written agreement. The Court of Appeals held that executives are employees under Labor Law article 6, except where expressly excluded. Regarding the second question, the Court ruled that the timing of when a commission is earned is governed by the parties' express or implied agreement, or by the default common-law rule if no agreement exists. The court found an implied agreement between Pachter and Hodes, making the deductions permissible.

Employment LawLabor LawWage DeductionsCommissionsExecutive Employee StatusImplied ContractNew York Court of AppealsCertified QuestionsEmployer-Employee AgreementCommon Law
References
19
Case No. 15-24-00097-CV, D-1-GN-24-003462
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2025

Randal Law v. Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers' Compensation Subsequent Injury Fund, Jeff Nelson, Kara MacE, and Blaise Gerstenlauer

The appellant, Randal Law, challenges the Texas Department of Insurance – Division of Workers’ Compensation – Subsequent Injury Fund (TDI-DWC-SIF) regarding the implementation of a new rule, 28 TAC §131.5. Mr. Law, a recipient of Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs) for a catastrophic injury, argues that the TDI-DWC-SIF acted ultra vires by imposing a monthly verification requirement for LIBs, which he claims directly conflicts with Texas Labor Code §§ 408.161(a) and 408.201. He asserts that these statutes mandate LIBs payments until death and exempt benefits from other actions or claims, leaving no discretion for administrative interference. The appellant contends that the new rule unlawfully transforms legislative intent, imposes an undue burden on injured workers, and has caused him significant financial hardship. He seeks to reverse the district court's decision on jurisdiction and for the appellate court to rule in favor of the plaintiff's jurisdiction and address the questions of law.

Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs)Ultra ViresSovereign Immunity ExceptionAdministrative Rule ChallengeStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor LawAppellate JurisdictionState Agency DiscretionInjured Employee RightsDue Process Violation
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06475 [210 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Kreutzberg v. Law Offs. of John Riconda, P.C.

The plaintiff, Thomas Kreutzberg, commenced an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the Law Offices of John Riconda, P.C. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to obtain the required consent from his workers' compensation carrier for the settlement of a no-fault and personal injury claim in 2009, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under CPLR 3211 (a) (5). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the motion, ruling that the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice accrued in 2009 and had expired by the time the action was commenced in 2020. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants successfully established the action was time-barred and the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in opposition.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 3211 (a) (5)Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Appellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTime-barred claimConsent RequirementNo-fault claim settlementPersonal injury action settlement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 18,123 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