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
Oct 01, 1975

Abeyta v. Travelers Insurance Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff challenged the jury's findings that his injury was not the producing cause of any total or partial incapacity. He also contended that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff sustained an injury on June 28, 1974, while working for W. D. Turner Construction Company, but medical examinations showed no objective findings of injury and he returned to work. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the jury's decision was supported by ample evidence and that any error in admitting evidence of unemployment benefits was harmless.

Workers' CompensationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsProducing CauseIncapacityUnemployment BenefitsAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorMedical EvidenceEmployment History
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 14-18-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2019

Christopher Durham v. Barbara Accardi and Jules Accardi

Christopher Durham, an at-will employee of Austin Budget Signs, Inc. (ABS), suffered serious injuries after falling from an elevated lift while performing maintenance on a sign. ABS did not carry workers' compensation insurance. Durham filed a lawsuit against ABS, Barbara Accardi, and Jules Accardi, alleging negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and that the Accardis were liable under alter ego and sham entity theories. The Accardis successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of evidence regarding individual duty, breach, and proximate cause, and challenging the corporate veil-piercing claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Durham failed to challenge all grounds for summary judgment on his negligence claims and did not present sufficient evidence to establish alter ego or sham to perpetrate a fraud.

NegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentCorporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoSham EntityAppellate ReviewDuty of CareProximate Cause
References
35
Case No. NO. 09-05-001 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Randy D. Greer and Keith D. Johnson v. Samuel Seales

The appellants, Randy D. Greer and Keith D. Johnson, sued Samuel Seales for personal injuries and property damage caused by Seales's alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. A jury found the accident was not proximately caused by either driver's negligence, leading to a final judgment for Seales. Appellants appealed, raising four issues concerning the trial court's denial of challenges for cause, the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the submission of an unavoidable accident instruction, and limitations on voir dire time. The Ninth District Court of Appeals at Beaumont affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no error was preserved for several challenges for cause, the evidence factually supported the jury's verdict, the unavoidable accident instruction was proper given the evidence of sunlight blinding the defendant, and the voir dire time objection was not preserved due to lack of specificity.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentNegligenceJury VerdictAppealVoir DireChallenges for CauseUnavoidable AccidentFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceTrial Procedure
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halprin v. State

Appellant, one of the "Texas Seven" prison escapees, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of a police officer during a robbery and sentenced to death. On appeal, he raised nineteen points of error, including claims that the trial court improperly excluded mitigating evidence, erroneously denied challenges for cause to veniremembers, and allowed improper commitment questions during voir dire. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the exclusion of mitigating evidence was not an abuse of discretion as it was hearsay and cumulative. The court also determined that any error in denying challenges for cause or permitting certain voir dire questions was harmless, as the appellant still had peremptory challenges available and the questions were not improper commitment questions.

Capital MurderPrison EscapeRobberyMitigating EvidenceHearsayBusiness Records ExceptionVoir DirePeremptory ChallengesCommitment QuestionsAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Burdo

The defendant appealed a judgment from Clinton County Court convicting them of murder in the second degree, kidnapping in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree. The appeal raised two primary issues: audio-visual coverage of the defendant's arraignment, which violated Judiciary Law § 218, and the denial of challenges for cause during jury selection. The court found that while the arraignment coverage was a statutory violation, it did not warrant reversal per se as the claims of jury taint were unsubstantiated. However, the Appellate Division determined that the trial court erred in denying challenges for cause for two prospective jurors who failed to unequivocally state their ability to be impartial, despite expressing predispositions. As the defendant exhausted their peremptory challenges, this error mandated a new trial.

Criminal LawAppellate ProcedureJury SelectionChallenges for CauseVoir DireJudiciary LawAudio-Visual CoverageArraignmentFair TrialImpartial Jury
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Independent Contractors Alliance v. Liu

This case involves two proceedings challenging the prevailing wage schedules set by the Comptroller of the City of New York for roadbuilders and pavers in public works projects during fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The petitioners, Local 175, United Plant and Production Workers (a labor union) and the New York Independent Contractors Alliance (an employer association), argued that the Comptroller's reclassification of trades and subsequent wage determinations caused them tangible injury, leading to a loss of public work opportunities. The respondents, the Comptroller and two other labor unions, moved to dismiss the petitions based on lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court denied both motions, concluding that the petitioners had established standing and that a decision on the merits of the claims requires the full administrative record from the Comptroller.

Prevailing WageLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsWage SchedulesLabor UnionsEmployer AssociationsStanding (Legal)Judicial ReviewClassification of TradesCollective Bargaining Agreements
References
67
Case No. Cause No. 12-92-00401-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00400-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00386-CV
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Blake

The Relator, James Ronnie White, filed three original mandamus proceedings against Judge Blake concerning child custody and parental rights over his daughter, K_B_W_. The case originated from a 1983 Alabama divorce, with subsequent modifications and allegations of child abuse that Alabama courts found groundless. After the child's mother moved K_B_W_ to Texas, White challenged a Texas protective order, the denial of his habeas corpus application for possession of the child, and the refusal to dismiss a petition to terminate his parental rights. The appellate court denied mandamus relief for the protective order and the denial of habeas corpus (due to lack of record on emergency grounds) but conditionally granted relief regarding attorney's fees awarded in the habeas matter. Crucially, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to dismiss the termination petition, holding that the Texas court abused its discretion by not adhering to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) requirements for deferring jurisdiction to Alabama, which continued to exercise jurisdiction.

MandamusChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationJurisdiction DisputeUCCJAPKPAInterstate CustodyHabeas CorpusProtective OrderAttorney Fees
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 11,076 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