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

Baker v. Lockheed Aircraft Service Co.

Harvey Baker sued Lockheed Aircraft Service Company and Bob Savage for breach of an alleged employment contract for a position in Iran. Baker claimed he accepted an oral offer, which Lockheed later withdrew, citing unsatisfactory reference checks as a condition precedent. The jury found that Lockheed's revocation was based on information from these checks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the written offer was tentative and subject to contingencies. The court emphasized that the statute of frauds required a complete written memorandum, and the parol evidence rule prevented converting a conditional written agreement into an unconditional oral one. Plaintiff failed to prove the satisfaction of the condition precedent.

Breach of ContractEmployment AgreementCondition PrecedentStatute of FraudsParol Evidence RuleContractual DisputeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictOffer of EmploymentWithdrawal of Offer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2002

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Equipment Co.

This case addresses an action brought by the State Insurance Fund (SIF) to collect unpaid premiums and interest on a workers' compensation insurance policy from the defendants. The central legal issue revolves around the interpretation of State Finance Law § 18 (10), specifically whether SIF must conduct a public hardship review before initiating a debt collection lawsuit. The motion court initially considered this review a condition precedent but later modified its stance, affirming that a review is required at some point, though not necessarily as a condition precedent. The dissenting opinion argues that the statute's intent is to facilitate revenue generation through debt collection, not to impose a mandatory, lengthy hardship review in every instance. It concludes that a hardship review is only warranted under specific conditions when a debtor requests it and demonstrates fiscal hardship.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsState Finance LawDebt CollectionHardship ReviewSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentFiscal ViabilityCondition Precedent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. 2-05-157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Jason Squyres and Misty Squyres v. Mariano Segura and Lori Segura

This case is an appeal from a trial court’s default judgment concerning a landlord-tenant dispute. The appellants, Jason and Misty Squyers (landlords), challenged the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence for conditions precedent and that the trial court erred by denying their motions for continuance and new trial. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court’s decision. It found that the appellants forfeited their right to dispute the conditions precedent due to their general denial. Furthermore, the court determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance and new trial motions, citing the appellants' and their counsel's conscious indifference to discovery requests and court orders.

Landlord-tenant disputeDefault judgmentAppealConditions precedentMotion for continuanceMotion for new trialAbuse of discretionConscious indifferenceSecurity depositBreach of contract
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanders Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Big Lake Kay Constr., Inc.

Sanders Oil & Gas, Ltd. appealed a trial court judgment favoring Big Lake Kay Construction, Inc. for services rendered. The trial court awarded Big Lake $25,614.61 and $7,200.00 in attorney fees based on a breach of oral contract. Sanders Oil raised three issues on appeal: Big Lake's alleged failure to satisfy a condition precedent, insufficient evidence for the damages award, and spoliation of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding no condition precedent, legally and factually sufficient evidence for damages, and no duty to preserve evidence for spoliation. The core dispute involved unpaid invoices for oil-field services and the subsequent factoring of these invoices to Security Business Capital, LLC.

Breach of Oral ContractSufficiency of EvidenceCondition PrecedentSpoliation of EvidenceDamages AwardFactoring InvoicesOil-field ServicesAppellate ReviewBench TrialAttorney Fees
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dealers National Insurance Company v. Simmons

Albert D. Simmons, an employee of Joe Bailey Martin, sustained an injury on December 25, 1964, while driving a truck to his employer's ranch. Martin carried both statutory workmen's compensation for his beer distribution business and voluntary workmen's compensation for his ranch employees with Dealer's National Insurance Company. Simmons initially claimed under both, but later pursued only the voluntary coverage, asserting he was a ranch hand, and the jury found he suffered a total and permanent disability. The trial court awarded Simmons a lump sum for disability and medical expenses, from which Dealer's National Insurance Company appealed, citing failure to satisfy conditions precedent and termination of liability due to a statutory claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as reformed to include a 4% discount for timely payment, determining that conditions precedent applied to payment and that no policy termination occurred.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary CompensationRanch EmployeeInjury ClaimsConditions PrecedentPolicy InterpretationJury MisconductDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesInsurance Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betts v. Tom Wade Gin

This workers' compensation case addresses whether an injured employee must tender settlement money received as a condition precedent to setting aside that agreement. James Betts, who suffered severe arm amputations while working at Tom Wade Gin, initially settled his claim for $45,000, but later sought to set aside the agreement under T.C.A. § 50-6-206. The trial court, following existing Tennessee case law, required Betts to tender the funds, a condition he did not meet, leading to the denial of his motion. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that tender is not required in such cases due to the remedial nature of workers' compensation statutes and to protect injured workers from unfair settlements. The court thus overruled prior precedents and remanded the case, allowing Betts to pursue his claim for higher compensation without returning the initial settlement amount.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementsTender RequirementStatutory InterpretationRemedial StatutesContract Law PrinciplesJudicial PrecedentEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsArm Amputation
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 5,604 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