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. 03-10-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2014

Linda M. Fischer v. Joel H. Klein Joel H. Klein & Associates Wyatt Wright Wayne Wright LLP Billy Wells, and Chicago Title Insurance Co.

Linda Fischer appealed the trial court's dismissal of her claims against Joel H. Klein and other appellees for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. She argued her suit was not an impermissible collateral attack on a prior Bexar County agreed order, asserting extrinsic fraud and that she was a non-party. The court reviewed whether her claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack based on intrinsic or extrinsic fraud. The court concluded that Fischer's claims, seeking to recover disbursed sale proceeds and challenging the Bexar County agreed order, represented intrinsic fraud because the misconduct was known or could have been known and at issue in the prior suit. Therefore, her suit was an impermissible collateral attack, and the trial court correctly dismissed her claims for want of jurisdiction.

Collateral AttackSubject-Matter JurisdictionIntrinsic FraudExtrinsic FraudAgreed OrderJudgment EnforcementHomestead ExemptionDue ProcessTrial Court ErrorAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Simone v. South African Marine Corp.

Plaintiff, a longshoreman, sued defendant for personal injuries, claiming a negligent act by defendant's employee caused him to suffer a heart attack while working. He previously filed a disability compensation claim against his employer, International Terminal Operating Co., Inc., under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. An Administrative Law Judge denied the compensation claim, finding his heart attack was unrelated to work. The Benefits Review Board affirmed this denial. In the current action, defendant moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, arguing the Department of Labor's finding that the injury was not work-related precluded plaintiff from relitigating this issue. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied summary judgment. This appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted summary judgment to the defendant, and dismissed the complaint, holding that collateral estoppel applied.

Personal InjuryLongshoremanHeart AttackCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataSummary JudgmentAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimDepartment of LaborAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 03-15-00446-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2015

Baxter Oil Service, Ltd. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

The trial court erred in granting the TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction. By the Order entered in connection with the Voda Site, the TCEQ attempts to impose monetary obligations on Baxter. Baxter is entitled to due process before it is deprived by the TCEQ of such property. Due process requires both adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Order fails to comport with due process because it does not provide adequate notice. Specifically, the Order not only fails to inform Baxter of its appellate remedies, but affirmatively misrepresents the finality of the Order. The Order also fails to inform Baxter of the possible scope of its liability, thereby leaving Baxter with insufficient information with which to determine whether to fight the Order. Because the Order fails to comport with due process, it is void. And because the Order is void, it may be collaterally attacked. Accordingly, the TCEQ’s plea to the jurisdiction, which argued that Baxter could not collaterally attack the Order by means of a summary judgment motion, was without merit.

Environmental RemediationDue Process ViolationAdministrative OrderCollateral AttackSuperfund LitigationTexas AppealsProperty DeprivationNotice RequirementsRegulatory EnforcementGovernmental Immunity
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Charlie Mason, a 53-year-old truck driver, died of a heart attack while working a night shift in freezing weather. His widow filed a worker's compensation claim, asserting the heart attack was an occupational disease or an accidental injury resulting from his strenuous work conditions and long hours. The jury determined Mason had a heart attack but found it did not occur in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the definition of 'occupational disease' or the refusal to include a specific definition of 'accidental injury'.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational DiseaseCourse of EmploymentJury InstructionsAccidental InjuryAppellate ReviewCausationTexas LawTruck Driver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dickie

This worker's compensation case concerns James Rhabb Dickie, an appellee, who suffered a heart attack while working as a carpenter. He sued for total and permanent disability benefits and medical expenses, claiming the heart attack was work-related. The appellant, Western Casualty and Surety Co., appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of 'strain, overexertion, or shock' and a defective jury charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding adequate evidence that Dickie's physically taxing work and the work environment causally contributed to his heart attack, and that the jury instruction on causation was proper.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational InjuryDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesCausationStrainOverexertionJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chatelain v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, discharged from Mount Sinai Hospital for misconduct, was denied unemployment benefits by the New York State Department of Labor. Though the administrative decision was upheld on appeal, plaintiff did not pursue state court review but instead filed a federal action alleging wrongful discharge and breach of duty of fair representation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on the administrative ruling. The District Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the collateral estoppel defense, holding that administrative agency decisions not reviewed by a state court, especially those from potentially unfair hearings, should not be given preclusive effect in federal court actions under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Wrongful DischargeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawFederal Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActDue ProcessSummary JudgmentGrievance Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1980

Hilowitz v. Hilowitz

In a negligence action for personal injuries, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 22, 1980. The order, issued by Justice Hyman, had denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defense of collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that an arbitration award, even without judicial confirmation, can serve as a basis for res judicata and collateral estoppel if there was a final determination on the merits. The court referenced Kilduff v Donna Oil Corp. and distinguished Hana Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v Sheet Metal Workers Int. Assn. All other contentions raised by the plaintiff were deemed to be without merit.

NegligencePersonal InjuryAppealCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataArbitration AwardJudicial ConfirmationFinal DeterminationAppellate DecisionSupreme Court Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anastasia v. Barnes

This case involves a wrongful death action where the defendant, New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA), and third-party defendant, Pinkerton’s New York Racing Security Service, Inc., moved to amend their answers. They sought to assert a setoff for pension and insurance benefits received by the plaintiff due to the decedent's death, invoking the "collateral source rule." The court, presided over by Justice Kenneth H. Lange, denied both motions. The decision delves into the nuances of the collateral source rule, distinguishing between gratuitous benefits and those part of employment compensation. It concludes that NYRA, not having contributed to the benefits, cannot assert them as a setoff, and Pinkerton’s, despite funding some benefits, cannot use them against an indemnification claim, prioritizing the tort-feasor's responsibility for compensation.

Wrongful DeathCollateral Source RuleSetoff DefenseLeave to Amend AnswerThird-Party LitigationIndemnification ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPension BenefitsInsurance BenefitsTort Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 798 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