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

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates v. City of Fort Worth

Richard L. Gates, an employee of the City of Fort Worth, suffered an on-the-job injury in 1975 and subsequently received a worker's compensation settlement. After obtaining a light duty medical release, the City informed Gates it could not re-employ him due to the unavailability of light duty positions. Gates filed suit, alleging wrongful termination in violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art 8307c, claiming discrimination for pursuing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Fort Worth and its personnel director, F. L. Priore. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Article 8307c does not apply to public employees covered by Article 8309h, and upheld the doctrine of governmental immunity.

Worker's CompensationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPublic EmployeesTexas LawRetaliation ClaimAppellate ReviewFort Worth
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates v. City of Dallas

Betty Gates sued the City of Dallas for denial of health insurance benefits after the City took over administration of its self-insurance plan and stopped payments for her multiple sclerosis treatment. The trial court initially awarded Gates unpaid benefits and $120,000 in attorney's fees under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 2226 and Tex.Ins.Code Ann. art. 1.14-1(7). The court of appeals reversed the attorney's fees award, applying a strict rule that "corporation" in a statute does not include municipal corporations unless expressly stated. This court reversed the court of appeals, holding that article 2226 applies to municipal corporations when they act in a proprietary capacity, such as entering an insurance contract. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to determine the reasonableness of the attorney's fees.

Attorney's FeesMunicipal CorporationsProprietary FunctionsGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationInsurance BenefitsContract LawRemandTexas LawHealth Benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 528566
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Kelly (Kelly, Kevin (dec'd)

Claimant Christine Kelly filed a claim for death benefits after her husband's death, alleging it was causally-related to his established asbestos-related occupational disease. Liability for the original disability claim had been transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The employer argued the Special Fund should be liable for the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed that the death benefits claim was a new and distinct claim, accruing at the time of death in 2016. Therefore, its transfer to the Special Fund was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), as the Special Fund closed to new applications effective January 1, 2014, a ruling supported by Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that liability did not shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisCausally Related DeathLiability TransferStatutory Cut-off DateAppellate DivisionThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. M1996-00003-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1999

Christine Spann v. Barry Abraham, Individually, and D/B/A Sir Pizza

This case involves Christine Spann's pregnancy discrimination claim against her employer, Barry Abraham, operating as Sir Pizza, under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Spann quit her job after refusing a temporary reassignment during her pregnancy, which she alleged was discriminatory. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted a directed verdict for the employer, finding Spann failed to establish a prima facie case. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence supported discriminatory intent or disparate treatment compared to similarly situated non-pregnant employees. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's procedural decisions regarding post-trial motions.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewDisparate TreatmentPrima Facie CaseConstructive DischargeTemporary ReassignmentMcDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
73
Case No. 14-03-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2005

Christine H. De Laurentis v. United Services Automobile Association A/K/A USAA

This case addresses an insurance-coverage dispute between policyholder Christine H. de Laurentis and insurer United Services Automobile Association (USAA) over mold damage in her apartment, allegedly caused by a leaking air conditioning unit. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for USAA, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding the breach-of-contract claim, holding that mold damage caused by a leaking air conditioning unit could be covered as a 'physical loss' under the named-perils policy, and found that USAA had waived the inventory requirement. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the extracontractual claims.

Insurance CoverageMold DamageRenter's Insurance PolicyAir Conditioning LeakBreach of ContractExtracontractual ClaimsSummary JudgmentCondition Precedent WaiverNamed Perils PolicyPhysical Loss
References
25
Case No. NO. 14-22-00879-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

Lasonthia Sandles, Individually as as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Rollins v. Deanna Louise Laskoskie, as Administrator of the Estates of George Delbert Laskoskie, Sr., and Louise Clymer Laskoskie

Lasonthia Sandles appealed a no-evidence summary judgment in her claims against Deanna Louise Laskoskie, administrator of the estates of George and Louise Laskoskie, stemming from the fatal injury of Christine Rollins. Rollins, an in-home caregiver for the Laskoskies, died after being attacked by animals on their property, with conflicting theories on whether dogs initiated the attack before feral hogs. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Sandles's expert report on dog involvement was conclusory and lacked scientific basis. The court found insufficient evidence, beyond mere surmise, to establish causation by the dogs for Sandles's claims of strict liability, negligent handling, or premises liability. The judgment highlighted that abundant evidence pointed towards wild hogs as the primary cause of Rollins's death.

Summary Judgment AppealNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentExpert Testimony ReliabilityConclusory EvidenceCausation ElementStrict Liability ClaimNegligent Handling ClaimPremises Liability ClaimAnimal Attack LitigationFeral Hog Attack
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bentley v. Bunton

The case involves Bentley suing Bunton and Gates for defamation. The jury found both defendants acted with actual malice and conspired to defame Bentley, but the trial court did not impose joint and several liability, which the court of appeals affirmed. Justice Baker dissents from the Supreme Court's decision to remand, arguing that Gates should be held jointly and severally liable for all damages due to the conspiracy and that the Court improperly conducted a factual sufficiency review of the mental anguish damages award. The dissenting opinion emphasizes established legal principles regarding civil conspiracy and the limited scope of the Supreme Court's appellate review concerning damages.

DefamationActual MaliceCivil ConspiracyJoint and Several LiabilityMental Anguish DamagesAppellate ReviewFirst Amendment RightsPublic FigureTexas Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 162 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