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
Jun 16, 2015

Texas Ear Nose & Throat Consultants, PLLC, Joseph Edmonds, Newton Duncan and James Albright v. John K. Jones M.D.

This case involves consolidated cross-appeals stemming from the departure of John Jones, a founding member, from Texas Ear Nose & Throat Consultants, PLLC (TENT). Jones sued TENT and other members for breach of agreements, shareholder oppression, and denial of access to records, while TENT counter-claimed for breach of contract. A jury found both TENT and Jones breached agreements, with TENT breaching first, and also found shareholder oppression, leading to a trial court judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees to both sides, and ordering a buy-out of Jones's membership. On appeal, the court modified the award of attorney's fees for denial of access to be against TENT and remanded for recalculation. It reversed the trial court's buy-out order and remanded Jones's shareholder oppression claims for further consideration under evolving legal standards. The court also reversed TENT's award of damages and attorney's fees for Jones's alleged breach of contract, effectively rendering a take-nothing judgment on those claims. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed as modified.

Shareholder OppressionBreach of ContractLimited Liability Company (LLC)Partnership DisputeEmployment AgreementAncillary IncomeAttorney's FeesAccess to RecordsRetirement NoticeDamages Calculation
References
63
Case No. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. 14-04-00819-CV; 14-04-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

in Re: Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.

Relators, Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd., and Dealer Computer Services, Inc., filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motion to compel arbitration against Hillcrest Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The dispute arose from two contracts between DCS and Hillcrest containing arbitration provisions. Hillcrest argued the provisions were unconscionable due to fraudulent inducement, a Michigan forum selection clause, limited remedies, a shortened statute of limitations, and potential prohibitive arbitration costs. The appellate court found that Hillcrest failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-signatories, UCCH and UCC, could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel because Hillcrest's allegations involved substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatories and the signatory. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusInterlocutory AppealUnconscionabilityForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelNon-SignatoriesContract Law
References
31
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09339 [178 AD3d 1320]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2019

WSA Group, PE-PC v. DKI Eng'g & Consulting USA PC

WSA Group, PE-PC, an appellant-respondent, sued DKI Engineering & Consulting USA PC, a respondent-appellant, for negligent supervision and breach of contract arising from a subcontract to inspect state bridges. The dispute stemmed from a defendant's employee falsifying an inspection report, leading to costs for the plaintiff that the defendant refused to indemnify. The Supreme Court partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the negligent supervision and part of the breach of contract claims time-barred under a three-year professional malpractice statute of limitations. However, it allowed the contractual indemnification claim related to reimbursement to DOT under a six-year breach of contract limitation. The Appellate Division affirmed that the malpractice-related claims were time-barred, accruing upon the completion of the contract in May 2014. Crucially, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for counsel fees and investigation costs, finding that this aspect of the indemnification claim was not subject to the three-year malpractice limitation and fell within the broad scope of the contractual indemnification agreement.

Professional MalpracticeBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsIndemnification ClauseNegligent SupervisionSubcontract AgreementEngineering ServicesAccrual of ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marshall v. Savannah Sausage Corp.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing a claimant's application for death benefits as untimely and denying counsel fees. James Marshall, a marketing consultant, sustained serious injuries in a 1977 motor vehicle accident and later died in 1981. His widow, the claimant, filed a death claim in 1984, which was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently affirmed by the Board, as it was not filed within two years of Marshall's death. Additionally, the Board denied counsel fees, ruling that compensation benefits would not exceed the third-party settlement Marshall received, thus rendering further legal efforts futile. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the untimely filing of the death claim and concurring that no counsel fees lien was applicable.

Death BenefitsTimeliness of ClaimCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierDisability ClaimAppealLienWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 05-18-00394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2019

Quality Metrics Partners, LLC, Clearview Diagnostics, LLC, CGK Consulting, LLC, CGK Medical Management, LLC, CGK Medical Ventures, LLC, Brodie Flanders, Michael Morales, Michael Knall, Anthony Kim, and Christopher R. Peyton v. Greg Blasingame Capricia Larson Gabby Consulting, LLC And DX Power Moves Consulting, LLC

Appellants challenged the trial court’s denial of their consolidated motions to compel arbitration. The dispute involves a series of contractual relationships, including a Representative Marketing Agreement, an alleged oral contract, and a Distribution Agreement containing an arbitration provision. The Court determined that QMP and Clearview are intended third-party beneficiaries of the Distribution Agreement, extending the arbitration clause's benefits to their agents. Consequently, all direct claims against the QMP Appellants, as well as their related tort claims, fall within the broad scope of the arbitration provision. The Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for all disputes between the parties to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeThird-Party BeneficiaryNon-Signatory ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationTort ClaimsIndependent ContractorMarketing Services
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2013

D&M Marine, Inc. D/B/A Phipps & Company Homes v. J. Neal Turner and Kerie B. Turner

J. Neal Turner and Kerie B. Turner sued D & M Marine, Inc. for damages incurred during the construction of their home, alleging negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of warranty. The jury found in favor of the Turners, awarding them attorneys' fees, and the trial court subsequently awarded engineering and consulting fees. D & M Marine appealed the judgment, raising issues regarding jury charge errors, the admission of hearsay evidence for fees, the allowance of attorney testimony concerning a settlement offer, and the factual sufficiency of the attorneys' fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of engineering and consulting fees but reversed and remanded the award of attorneys' fees for a new trial due to insufficient evidence supporting the lodestar calculation.

Construction DefectDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of WarrantyNegligenceAttorneys' FeesJury Charge ErrorHearsay EvidenceSettlement OfferFactual SufficiencyResidential Construction Liability Act
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Claim of Shanbaum v. Alliance Consulting Group

The claimant, a software solution architect for Alliance Consulting Group, sustained an injury on September 11, 2001, while evacuating her apartment located across from her employer's World Trade Center office after the terrorist attacks. Her employer provided and paid for the apartment, which also served as a remote workspace equipped with a company laptop for accessing the main server. On the morning of the incident, the claimant had logged onto her computer, checked work emails, and begun preparing for a meeting. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the apartment functioned as an extension of the employer’s office and that the injury arose within the scope of her employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTelecommutingHome OfficeWorld Trade Center AttacksSeptember 11Employer LiabilityArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of Employment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,648 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