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

Klussman v. A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Klussman, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured while off-loading water bottles, leading to a lawsuit against the water distributor, Leisure Time, and the building occupant, Cure Connections. The Supreme Court initially denied Leisure Time's motion for summary judgment but granted Cure Connections'. On appeal, the decision was modified, with Leisure Time's motion for summary judgment being granted and the complaint against them dismissed. The appellate court determined that Klussman's chosen method of unloading, moving a heavy load at a faster speed down an incline, was the proximate cause of his injury, rather than any defective equipment provided by Leisure Time.

summary judgmentnegligencespecial employeeproximate causeworkers' compensation lawpallet jackloading dock accidentpersonal injuryappellate reviewduty of care
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messier v. Bouchard Transportation

Plaintiff Richard Messier, a seaman, filed a maritime action against Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., initially alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, and seeking maintenance and cure for B-cell lymphoma. Messier later dropped his Jones Act claim. The primary legal question was the definition of "manifest" for admiralty purposes: whether an asymptomatic illness contracted while in service but diagnosed later qualifies for maintenance and cure. The court denied Messier's motion for summary judgment and granted Bouchard's cross-motion, ruling that "manifest" requires the exhibition of symptoms while in the service of the ship. Additionally, the court rejected Messier's alternative theory that he was entitled to maintenance and cure for lymphoma because it manifested while he was potentially eligible for maintenance and cure for a back injury, as he was not actively receiving such benefits. As a result, Messier's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as moot.

Maritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CureSeamanB-cell LymphomaAsymptomatic DiseaseManifestation of IllnessSummary JudgmentSecond CircuitDisease Onset
References
29
Case No. 05-11-01425-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2014

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Leath, Lonzie

Justice FitzGerald dissents from the denial of appellant's motion for rehearing en banc, arguing that the appellee failed to provide adequate notice regarding a constitutional defect in the mortgage. The dissent contends that the general pleading submitted by the appellee lacked sufficient detail for Wells Fargo to effectively utilize the 60-day cure period. Drawing an analogy to the requirements for attorneys’ fees under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Justice FitzGerald asserts that such a broad notice should not trigger the cure period, as it would make the lender's ability to cure contingent on the debtor’s cooperation. Therefore, the dissenting justice believes the motion for rehearing en banc should have been granted.

Mortgage LawConstitutional LawNotice RequirementsCure PeriodAppellate ProcedureEn Banc RehearingTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAttorneys' FeesReal Estate LawBanking Law
References
4
Case No. 13-23-00230-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2025

BBVA USA v. Taylor Corynn Carey, Terrence MacDonald Carey, and Morgan Leigh Carey

Appellant BBVA USA, as successor to PNC Bank, N.A., challenged a summary judgment favoring appellees Taylor, Terrence, and Morgan Carey. The dispute originated from a leasehold interest in a South Padre Island condominium, financed by BBVA. The original tenant defaulted on lease payments and taxes. The Careys issued a default notice to both the tenant and BBVA, allowing BBVA 90 days to cure the default. Despite acquiring the leasehold through foreclosure, BBVA failed to cure the default within the allotted time, leading to the Careys terminating BBVA's interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the Careys' entitlement to possession and denying BBVA's claims for breach of contract, reentry, unlawful lockout, and equitable subrogation, primarily due to BBVA's failure to timely cure the tenant's default as per the lease terms.

Summary judgmentLease agreementDefault noticeForeclosureEquitable subrogationProperty lawContract lawAppellate reviewTexas lawLandlord-tenant dispute
References
28
Case No. 14-02-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2002

in Re: R&B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc.

The relator, R&B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc., sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Elizabeth Ray of the 165th District Court of Harris County to vacate parts of a discovery order. The underlying suit involves Louis Zetka, a Jones Act seaman, who sued R&B Falcon for alleged personal injury and maintenance and cure. R&B Falcon ceased maintenance and cure payments, citing Zetka's alleged misrepresentations during a pre-hiring medical exam. Zetka then sought broad discovery regarding R&B Falcon's handling of maintenance-and-cure claims for other employees, which the trial court largely granted. The appellate court found the compelled discovery irrelevant and overly broad, and thus R&B Falcon had no adequate remedy by appeal. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, directing the trial court to vacate the objectionable parts of the discovery order.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeMaritime LawJones ActMaintenance and CurePre-employment Medical ExamAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsReal Party in Interest
References
16
Case No. ADJ8686864
Regular
Dec 23, 2015

JOSE MOLLINEDO vs. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, SPARTA INSURANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 mandates verification, and precedent allows dismissal for unverified petitions that are not cured or adequately explained after notice. The applicant failed to cure the defect or provide a compelling reason for its absence within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerification defectLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDismissalWCJ reportLien claimant
References
1
Case No. ADJ8935493
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

CYNTHIA LANDSIEDEL vs. SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration or removal of a WCJ's decision denying bariatric surgery or a weight loss program for an industrial back, neck, and leg injury. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, finding it an inappropriate remedy as a final order existed and reconsideration was available. The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that the requested surgery was reasonably required to cure or relieve the industrial injury. Additionally, the petition was subject to dismissal due to improper verification, which was not cured despite notice.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryBariatric SurgeryWeight Loss ProgramMedical TreatmentUtilization ReviewBurden of ProofEvidentiary Burden
References
5
Case No. 06-99-00175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2000

the Travelers Insurance Company v. Ted R. Wilson and Clem C. Martin, D.C.

The Travelers Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict that awarded Ted R. Wilson and his chiropractor, Clem C. Martin, D.C., $120,621.27 for unpaid chiropractic services under a workers' compensation policy. Travelers raised points of error concerning the jury charge's language ('cure or relieve' versus 'cure and relieve'), the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for the award amount, and the trial court's preclusion of Dr. John Milani's expert testimony. The appellate court found no reversible error, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationChiropractic CareMedical ExpensesJury InstructionsStatutory InterpretationSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestExpert TestimonyAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. ADJ1148042 (RIV 0079139)
Regular
Apr 24, 2012

SARA OCHOA vs. BEL AIRE WINDOW COVERINGS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision disallowing a medical lien from Aspen Medical Resources (AMR). AMR failed to prove that the durable medical equipment it provided was reasonably necessary to cure or relieve the applicant's industrial injury, lacking a report from the primary treating physician requesting such equipment. Furthermore, the applicant's treatment occurred outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) after proper notification was given, and AMR's argument regarding defective MPN notice was rejected as defects can be cured. The Board also found no error in the admission of defendant's exhibits, as any objection to the proof of service was waived by AMR's failure to timely object.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNLien ClaimantDurable Medical EquipmentReasonable and NecessaryBurden of ProofUtilization ReviewProof of ServiceTimely ObjectionWaiver
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sinco, Inc. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Sinco, Inc. (Plaintiff) and Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company (Defendant) entered a contract for the installation of a fall-protection system in Grand Central Terminal. During a training session, several components of the system were found to be defective, leading Metro-North to deem the entire system unacceptable and eventually terminate the contract after Sinco's attempts to cure the breach were deemed insufficient. Sinco subsequently filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, while Metro-North counterclaimed for the cost of cover. The court granted Metro-North's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Sinco failed to effect a proper cure under New York's Uniform Commercial Code, and denied Sinco's motion, referring the case for an inquest on damages.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentUCC Article 2Cure of BreachMaterial BreachNon-conforming TenderProduct LiabilityQuality Control FailureFall Protection SystemContract Termination
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 265 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