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

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Cobbs

Charles Jeff Cobbs and his company, Falcon Air Charter, L.L.C., sued their former employer, Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc., seeking declaratory judgment and damages related to a confidentiality agreement and alleged competition. Ameristar counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty and other torts. A jury sided with Cobbs on malicious prosecution and found against Ameristar's counterclaims. The trial court issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Cobbs's wrongful injunction and tortious interference claims. On appeal, the court reversed the malicious prosecution claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages, but affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects, including the denial of attorney's fees to Ameristar.

malicious prosecutionbreach of fiduciary dutytemporary injunctiontrade secretsdeclaratory judgmentattorney's feestortious interferencewrongful injunctionlost profitsappellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Charter School Ass'n v. Smith

This case involves appeals from two Supreme Court judgments concerning the applicability of Labor Law article 8's prevailing wage provisions to construction, renovation, repair, and maintenance projects undertaken by charter schools. Initially, the Department of Labor (DOL) had issued an opinion that charter school contracts were not subject to these provisions but reversed its stance in 2007. Various charter schools and related entities challenged this new determination, but the Supreme Court dismissed their applications, ruling in favor of DOL. On appeal, the court applied the two-part Erie County test, including modifications from a 2007 statutory amendment, to determine if the projects were subject to prevailing wage laws. The appellate court concluded that charter agreements do not satisfy the requirements of a contract for public work involving laborers, workers, or mechanics, thus reversing the lower court's judgments and declaring charter schools exempt from Labor Law article 8's prevailing wage provisions.

Charter SchoolsPrevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 8Public Work ProjectsDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78Educational CorporationsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentErie County Test
References
4
Case No. 03-10-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby v. USA Bus Charter, Inc.

Appellants Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby sued USA Bus Charter, Inc. over problems with chartered buses, including deceptive pricing, late arrivals, and insufficient seating, which initially led to a no-answer default judgment against USA Bus. The district court subsequently granted USA Bus's motion for a new trial, set aside the default judgment, and compelled arbitration, dismissing the suit. Appellants appealed these rulings, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting the new trial and enforcing the arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that USA Bus's corporate counsel's mistake of law regarding Arizona procedural rules constituted a sufficient excuse under the Craddock elements to justify a new trial. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellants' challenges to the arbitration agreement (illusoriness and unconscionability) were broad contract challenges that must be decided by an arbitrator, and upheld the requirement for arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona, under Arizona law.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMistake of LawMeritorious Defense
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Builders v. Durham

Charter Builders, a general contractor, appealed a judgment denying its claims for indemnity or contribution from Commercial Drywall, a third-party defendant. Durham, an employee, had originally sued Charter Builders for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The jury found negligence and gross negligence against Charter Builders, apportioning 55% of the negligence. The appellate court affirmed the denial of contribution, citing Charter Builders' failure to support its claim, its proportionate payment of damages, the basis of exemplary damages on gross negligence, and Commercial Drywall's immunity as a subscribing employer under the Workers' Compensation Act. The court also denied indemnification, ruling that the contractual provisions did not unequivocally indemnify Charter Builders against its own negligence, as required by Texas law, and no exceptions applied to this rule.

Workers' CompensationContributionIndemnity AgreementJoint TortfeasorsEmployer ImmunityGross NegligenceAppellate ProcedureContract InterpretationPremises LiabilityEmployee Definition
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Pierce

The case involves a workers' compensation claim by Pierce against Charter Oak, stemming from a work-related accident where Pierce lost a finger and sustained a 30% permanent partial loss of use of his hand. Charter Oak appealed a trial court judgment, contending it was not properly credited for voluntary payments made to Pierce prior to trial. The appellate court found that the trial court's method of calculating the remaining compensation by subtracting weeks rather than the total amount paid was incorrect. The court agreed with Charter Oak, reforming the judgment to correctly apply credit for the $3,570 already paid. Consequently, the judgment was reformed to $1,910.29, including 4% interest, and then affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityHand InjuryFinger InjuryVoluntary PaymentsCredit for PaymentsJudgment ReformationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Currie

This workers' compensation case involves Chester Currie, Jr.'s claim for benefits against Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company. Following a third-party action that yielded a $9,900.00 recovery, split between Currie and Charter Oak, the trial court initially refused to grant Charter Oak an offset for benefits already paid and Currie's share of the third-party recovery, entering judgment for Currie for $8,330.00. The appellate court examined the applicability of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307, § 6a, which governs how third-party recoveries are applied against workers' compensation benefits to prevent double recovery. The court concluded that Charter Oak was entitled to an offset, determining that the entire $9,900.00 constituted an 'advance fund.' Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a new judgment, awarding Currie $1,260.00 after accounting for the offset.

Workers' CompensationThird Party RecoveryOffsetDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationTexas LawInsuranceAppellate ReviewAdvance FundReimbursement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Roofing Co. v. Tri-State Insurance Co.

Charter Roofing appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Tri-State Insurance Co. and Securance Corporation Agency. Charter alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the DTPA and Insurance Code, and challenged the statute of limitations. The dispute arose after Tri-State denied a liability claim by Charter, which had voluntarily paid a third party, Weingarten Realty, for property damage without a judgment or settlement agreement. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Texas law does not recognize a breach of good faith action for this type of third-party liability policy, Tri-State had a reasonable basis for denying the claim, and Charter violated policy provisions by making a voluntary payment. Furthermore, the court found Securance, as a procuring agent, was not liable and assessed damages against Charter for a frivolous appeal against Securance.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance CodeThird-Party LiabilityPolicy ExclusionsVoluntary Payment
References
12
Case No. 2022-03-0480
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2022

Sauber, Robert v. Charter Communications, LLC aka Charter Spectrum

Robert Sauber filed a petition for medical and temporary disability benefits after breaking his wrist in a fall at work on March 2, 2022. Charter Communications, the employer, argued the fall was idiopathic, but this issue was not certified for adjudication. The Court found that Charter failed to respond to the petition, participate in mediation, or provide a panel of physicians. Judge Pamela B. Johnson ruled that Mr. Sauber is likely to prevail on the merits, granting his request for benefits. The Court ordered Charter to pay for all medical expenses, authorize ongoing therapy, and provide temporary disability benefits of $771.06 per week from March 3, 2022, totaling $16,192.26, and continuing. Charter's carrier was also referred to the Compliance Program for investigation and assessment of a civil penalty due to multiple failures.

Expedited HearingMedical Benefits AwardedTemporary Disability AwardedEmployer Non-ComplianceIdiopathic Fall Defense RejectedWorkers' Compensation Law § 50-6-239Panel of Physicians RequirementCompliance Program ReferralWrist FractureOrthopedic Surgeon Evaluation
References
6
Case No. 02-11-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2012

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. Gene Swanigan

This case involves an appeal by Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company regarding a workers' compensation claim filed by Gene Swanigan. Swanigan sustained a work-related finger injury on May 18, 2006, subsequently diagnosed as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)/Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) by his treating physicians. While Charter Oak accepted the initial injury, it disputed the extension to RSD/CRPS, leading to administrative and district court proceedings. A jury in Tarrant County found Swanigan's injury to be the producing cause of his condition. On appeal, the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings.

Workers' CompensationReflex Sympathetic DystrophyComplex Regional Pain SyndromeMedical CausationExpert WitnessSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingPain ManagementWorkplace InjuryInsurance Dispute
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 3,521 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