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
Nov 06, 1997

B-S Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Burns Bros. Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff, a heavy construction business, alleged that defendant Burns Brothers Contractors, Inc., a material supplier, and defendant Robert E. Anderson, a former key project estimator for plaintiff, conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contracts and misappropriated confidential information. Plaintiff contended that Anderson, upon joining Burns, used its confidential bidding information to secure contracts with Champion Paper Company, Inc., which were originally intended for plaintiff. The Supreme Court initially granted a temporary restraining order and an order of seizure for files taken by Anderson, but later vacated the restraining order. Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations, which the Supreme Court granted, while denying Burns' cross-motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentations and misappropriation of confidential information to gain a competitive advantage were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Tortious InterferenceConfidential InformationTrade SecretsCompetitive AdvantageMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewCommercial DisputeEmployment LawUnfair Competition
References
6
Case No. 03-15-00416-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2015

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.

AmeriPro Funding, Inc. is a residential mortgage lender. Appellants Michael H. Nasserfar, Michael E. Task, and Tycord R. Gosnay, former employees, are accused of secretly transmitting confidential records to competitor Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. before resigning, and continuing to possess and use these records. This brief argues for the affirmance of a temporary injunction granted by the district court against the appellants for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and other torts. The injunction aims to prevent further use of confidential information and solicitation of specific customers, with evidence supporting imminent and irreparable harm to AmeriPro. The brief also addresses arguments regarding the temporary injunction's compliance with Rule 683, the definition of 'customers', and the return of confidential information.

Confidential Information MisappropriationTrade Secret TheftBreach of Fiduciary DutyNon-Solicitation ViolationsTemporary Injunction AppealEmployee PoachingUnfair CompetitionCustomer List ProtectionFinancial Data ProtectionContract Interference
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. v. State

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated, both Independent Review Organizations (IROs), appealed a trial court's judgment denying their request to exempt certain records from disclosure under the Public Information Act (PIA). They sought to prevent the release of information pertaining to their reviewers, reviewer contracts, and compensation terms, arguing that this information was either 'confidential by law' or fell under the commercial or financial information exception of the PIA. The Texas Department of Insurance, having received the initial information request, had interpreted its rules to protect patient-specific data provided *to* IROs, not data provided *by* IROs as part of their certification application. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that any exception to public disclosure applied to the disputed information.

Public Information ActOpen Records ActConfidentiality ExemptionCommercial InformationFinancial InformationIndependent Review OrganizationsIRO CertificationMedical NecessityUtilization ReviewTrade Secrets
References
12
Case No. 01-21-00089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2022

TASF, LLC D/B/A Turnaround Special Forces, LLC Eddie Garza, Clint Dewispelaera, Alex Castillo and John Ruff v. Turn2 Specilaty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC

The First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed a temporary injunction issued against TASF, LLC, and its principals for allegedly misappropriating trade secrets from Turn2 Specialty Companies, LLC and Turn2 Workforce Solutions, LLC. The misappropriated information included confidential base wage rates, billing rates, per diem amounts, contract terms, and vendor lists. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the information deserved trade secret protection and that Turn2 took reasonable steps to maintain secrecy. The court found one issue moot due to the expiration of a provision and modified the injunction to specifically define the protected trade secrets, ensuring clarity for the enjoined parties.

Trade SecretsTemporary InjunctionMisappropriationConfidential InformationProprietary InformationBusiness PracticesContract TermsBilling RatesVendor ListsBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AmeriGas Propane, Inc. v. Crook

AmeriGas Propane Inc. sought injunctive relief against former employees J.T. Crook and Ricky Jenkins, and their new employer Empiregas, Inc. of Lebanon, alleging breach of non-compete agreements, tortious interference with contract, and misappropriation of confidential information. The court found that Crook and Jenkins breached their post-employment agreements by soliciting AmeriGas customers using confidential information gained during their prior employment. The defendants and Empiregas were also found liable for tortious interference with contracts and unfair competition. The court concluded that AmeriGas suffered irreparable harm, upholding contracts serves public interest, and enforcing the covenants would not impose undue economic hardship on the defendants. Consequently, the court granted AmeriGas's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Non-compete agreementPreliminary InjunctionBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionTrade SecretsEmployee SolicitationCustomer GoodwillPropane Gas Industry
References
22
Case No. W2008-00936-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC v. Tammy L. Keymon

This appeal involves a noncompete agreement and the Tennessee Trade Secrets Act. The defendant employee, Tammy L. Keymon, worked for the plaintiff employer, The Hamilton-Ryker Group, LLC, for fourteen years. Following a temporary layoff, Keymon solicited one of Hamilton-Ryker's clients, Verizon, and emailed numerous confidential documents from her work email to her personal email address. The trial court found Keymon liable for breach of contract, misappropriation of confidential information, and violation of the Tennessee Trade Secrets Act, awarding over $900,000 in doubled damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the enforceability of the noncompete clause despite lacking a territorial limitation, concluding that the emailed information constituted a trade secret, and supporting the damages award.

Noncompete ClauseTrade Secret MisappropriationBreach of Employment AgreementConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionExemplary DamagesBusiness Relationships InterferenceEmployee Duty of LoyaltyDamages CalculationCustomer Solicitation
References
39
Case No. 05-18-00874-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2019

James Damonte v. Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. and Heath XS, LLC

James Damonte appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) in a lawsuit brought by Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. and Heath XS, LLC. Hallmark accused Damonte of breaching fiduciary duty and contract, and violating the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act by misappropriating confidential information and soliciting employees after his resignation. Damonte argued the lawsuit targeted his rights to free speech and association, claiming his communications with employees were about workplace complaints. The Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court concluded that Damonte failed to demonstrate the TCPA applied, as Hallmark's claims were based on an alleged scheme to misuse confidential business information, not on protected expression concerning matters of public concern or public participation.

Texas Citizens Participation ActMotion to DismissFree Speech RightsRight of AssociationConfidential InformationTrade Secrets ActBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNon-Competition AgreementNon-Solicitation Agreement
References
10
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

Seton Health Plan, Inc., a licensed health maintenance organization (HMO), failed to file its annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports for 1999 and 2000 with the Texas Health Care Information Council, leading to a dispute over civil penalties. The State, through the Attorney General, initially demanded $153,000, interpreting 'each act of violation' as each day of non-compliance, while Seton contended the maximum penalty was $10,000 per unfiled report. Seton filed a declaratory judgment action to construe the statute, and the district court sided with Seton, assessing a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each report. The State appealed, raising issues of mootness, sovereign immunity, the penalty amount, denial of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the penalty, the assessed penalties, and the denial of injunctive relief, but remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionCivil PenaltiesSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesHEDIS ReportHealth Maintenance OrganizationTexas Health and Safety CodeAdministrative Procedure Act
References
43
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 1,554 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