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. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. 2013-1427 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2016

Harvard Med., P.C. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

This is an appeal by Harvard Medical, P.C., as assignee of Lenford Carty, against Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. The appeal is from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, entered April 12, 2013, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The defendant argued that it had fully paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the Civil Court's order, citing a related case, Renelique, as Assignee of Yvon Delgado v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAssignee
References
1
Case No. 2011-192 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Jamaica Dedicated Med. Care, P.C. v. Tri State Consumer Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which denied defendant Tri State Consumer Ins. Co.'s cross motion for summary judgment. Jamaica Dedicated Medical Care, P.C., as assignee, sought first-party no-fault benefits. Tri State Consumer Ins. Co. contended that it had either properly reimbursed services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule or timely denied others due to lack of medical necessity. The Appellate Term found a triable issue of fact regarding medical necessity and that the defendant failed to establish its workers' compensation fee schedule defense as a matter of law. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentMedical necessityWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewAssigneeInsurance claimCivil CourtAppellate TermKings County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. Tri-State Consumer Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning the amount of supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage available under an insurance policy issued by Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company. The plaintiffs, daughters and administrators of the estates of Rifka and Anton Goldenberg who died in a car accident, sought $400,000 in SUM coverage. Tri-State contended the coverage was limited to $145,000, arguing that payments from the tortfeasor's insurer ($100,000) and a Dram Shop recovery ($255,000) reduced the $500,000 policy limit. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for $400,000 in coverage and denied Tri-State's cross-motion. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the Dram Shop recovery, as damages from sources other than motor vehicle liability insurance, correctly reduced the SUM endorsement, thus limiting the available coverage to $145,000.

Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured MotoristSUM CoverageInsurance Policy InterpretationDram Shop ActWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance LawContract LawAutomobile Insurance
References
8
Case No. M2003-02030-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Consumer Financial Services (Management) Inc., G. Ronald Hall, and Jacquelene O'Rourke Hall v. Consumer Financial Services Management, L.L.C. and Gabriel, L.L.C.

This contract action involved the sale of a loan company. The purchasers encountered significant financial and operational problems post-closing and sought to rescind the transaction, while the sellers later sued for breach of contract. The purchasers filed a counter-complaint, alleging fraudulent inducement through multiple misrepresentations. The trial court sided with the purchasers, finding the sellers had committed fraud, granting rescission of the sale agreement, and awarding compensatory damages, while dismissing the sellers' complaint. The sellers appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was ample evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions by the sellers, and that the remedies of contract unenforceability, rescission, and damages were appropriate.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementRescission of ContractBreach of ContractBusiness AcquisitionMisrepresentationDue DiligenceFinancial DisclosureAppellate ReviewDamages Calculation
References
19
Case No. 01-22-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2024

Ernest Polk v. Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner

Ernest Polk, a Financial Examiner I, was terminated by the Texas Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner (OCCC) for alleged misuse of his state credit card. Polk sued OCCC for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, claiming his promotion was delayed and termination was retaliatory after he reported racial discrimination. The trial court granted OCCC's Plea to the Jurisdiction, dismissing his claims. The appellate court affirmed, finding Polk failed to establish a causal link or pretext for his retaliation claim, did not exhaust administrative remedies for his race discrimination termination claim, and the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough for a hostile work environment claim.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionCredit Card MisuseFailure to PromotePrima Facie Case
References
68
Case No. 2013-1709 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2016

Renelique v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

Pierre Jean Jacques Renelique, as Assignee of Yvon Delgado, initiated an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. The defendant successfully moved for summary judgment in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, arguing that it had fully compensated the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the defendant was precluded from asserting its defense regarding the fee schedule due to insufficient particularity in the denial of claim form; however, this argument was deemed to lack merit by the Appellate Term. Furthermore, the plaintiff's attempt to challenge the calculation of the recoverable amount under the workers' compensation fee schedule was not considered by the appellate court, as it was raised for the first time on appeal. Consequently, the Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's order, finding no basis to disturb it.

no-fault insuranceworkers' compensationsummary judgmentappellate reviewclaim denialmedical billingfee scheduleassigneeassignorinsurance defense
References
3
Case No. 2013-1419 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2016

GBI Acupuncture, P.C. v. Tri State Consumers Ins. Co.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that it had fully paid plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court granted defendant's motion. For the reasons stated in Renelique, as Assignee of Yvon Delgado v Tri State Consumers Ins. Co. (___ Misc 3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2013-1709 Q C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAssigneeAppellate TermFirst-party benefitsInsurance disputeCivil CourtKings County
References
1
Case No. 02-14-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Fix It Today, LLC and Banatex, LLC v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Appellants Fix It Today, LLC and Banatex, LLC (collectively, FIT Finance) appealed a judgment in favor of Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (SCUSA). FIT Finance operated a scheme to make loans for emergency auto repair, claiming superior worker's liens over SCUSA's perfected purchase money security interests. SCUSA sued for conversion, tortious interference, damages under the Texas Theft Liability Act, conspiracy, and sought a declaratory judgment. The trial court initially ruled for SCUSA, but the Court of Appeals reversed the conspiracy claim, entering a take-nothing judgment. Additionally, the conversion, tortious interference, Texas Theft Liability Act claims, and the attorney's fee award were reversed and remanded for a new trial. The declaratory judgment portion of the trial court's decision was affirmed.

Texas LawCivil ConspiracyConversionTortious InterferenceTexas Theft Liability ActWorkers' Lien StatuteDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDamages Calculation
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 452 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