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. ADJ9376675
Regular
Oct 20, 2015

JESSICA FIELD vs. INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the DRE method, rather than the ROM method, was improperly applied by the QME. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the QME's reliance on the DRE method, specifically Category IV, was supported by substantial medical evidence and properly applied under the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The defendant's contention that the rating was invalid under *Blackledge* was also rejected, as the QME report met legal and regulatory requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDINGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENTADMINSUREPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides Fifth EditionDRE MethodLumbar Spine Category IVwhole person impairment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2022

Borelli v. JB IV, LLC

Plaintiff Patrick K. Borelli sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting work at a property owned by defendant JB IV, LLC and leased to defendant Champz of Binghamton, LLC. He and his wife commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment by dismissing two regulatory violations under Labor Law § 241 (6), but otherwise denied both parties' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining Labor Law claims, finding unresolved questions of fact regarding the creation of the dangerous condition and the adequacy of safety devices provided. The appeal from the initial order was dismissed as superseded by an amended order.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment DenialLadder FallConstruction AccidentsProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code Violations
References
19
Case No. M2003-00629-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Linda C. Gorrell v. Tyree B. Harris, IV

This is a child support modification appeal where Linda C. Gorrell sought to modify a settlement agreement with Tyree B. Harris, IV. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the private agreement was void as against public policy, modifying the trial court's decision. It ruled that child support, both prospective and retroactive, must conform to Tennessee Child Support Guidelines, reversing the trial court on retroactive support calculation. The court also mandated an upward deviation for prospective support due to the father's lack of visitation, despite the mother's antagonistic conduct, but denied retroactive upward deviation. The case was remanded for recalculation and determination of attorney fees.

Child SupportModificationPaternitySettlement AgreementVoid ContractPublic PolicyTennessee Child Support GuidelinesRetroactive SupportProspective SupportUpward Deviation
References
29
Case No. 13-17-00691-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

David Atkinson v. Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board

David Atkinson, a condominium owner, appealed a final judgment in favor of Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board. Atkinson raised six issues, including complaints about utility payment as common expenses, the jury's failure to find breach of contract or fiduciary duty, the trial court's failure to rule on limitations on the board's powers, the distribution of lawsuit settlement funds, the granting of attorney's fees to the Association, and the creation of preferential parking rights. The appellate court overruled Atkinson's first, second, third, fourth, and sixth issues, largely due to waiver or insufficient legal argument. However, the court sustained Atkinson's fifth issue, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the Association under both the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and the property code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment regarding attorney's fees and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Condominium LawHomeowners AssociationBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesProperty CodeAppellate ProcedureFactual SufficiencyWaiver
References
23
Case No. 03-02-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Charles A. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was denied unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) after failing a drug test. King sought judicial review, initially filing in Travis County and later refiling in Bastrop County, 125 days after the TWC's final decision. Heart Hospital and TWC challenged the refiling, arguing King missed the 14-day statutory deadline for judicial review. The district court denied TWC's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 14-day deadline in the labor code is a jurisdictional prerequisite, making the sixty-day tolling provision of section 16.064 and equitable tolling inapplicable. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the cause was dismissed.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlinesJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionTolling ProvisionsEquitable TollingCourt of AppealsAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. 15-24-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Edward Rudolph Turnbull, IV v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline, Daniela Grosz, Daniel Martinez, Seana Willing, John S. Brannon, Amanda Kates, Jenny Hodgkins, and the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas, Cindy v. Tisdale, Steve Benesh, Laura Gibson, Kennon Lily Wooten

This document is an appellee's brief filed by Jenny Hodgkins in an appeal before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Hodgkins is the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BODA). The appeal stems from a trial court's decision to grant Hodgkins's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing claims brought by Appellant Edward Randolph Turnbull, IV. Hodgkins argues that Turnbull lacks standing to challenge prosecutorial decisions regarding other attorneys and that she is immune from suit under sovereign immunity and Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 17.09. She contends her actions were ministerial and within her official duties, not ultra vires or violative of constitutional rights.

Appellate CourtPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityStandingDue ProcessEqual ProtectionUltra ViresAttorney DisciplineState Bar Act
References
59
Case No. M2001-02182-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2003

Dawn Larsen Niceley v. James Jacob Niceley, IV

After a sixteen-year marriage, Husband and Wife both filed for divorce. The trial court established a parenting plan, valued and divided marital property, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees as alimony in solido. On appeal, the Court affirmed the parenting plan and the distribution of marital property. However, the appellate court reversed the award of attorney’s fees, finding that the trial court's rationale was based solely on Husband's fault and not on Wife's demonstrated economic disadvantage or need, which is a primary factor for alimony awards.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting PlanMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAttorney's FeesEconomic DisadvantageMarital FaultAppellate ReviewTennessee Family Law
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misseritti v. Mark IV Construction Co.

The case involves a plaintiff's decedent who was injured when a wall collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing it was a 'falling object' case. The court disagreed, holding that the wall's collapse, being at the same level as the worksite, did not fall under the statute's protection for elevation-related risks. Therefore, summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was granted in favor of the defendant. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to Mark IV Construction Co., the general contractor, on its third-party complaint against the decedent’s employer, as the general contractor did not direct, control, or supervise the employer's work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentWall CollapseFalling Object DoctrineElevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintGeneral Contractor LiabilityEmployer LiabilityWorker Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. Behrman Bros. IV, LLC

This case involves plaintiffs Winifred Marie Garner and Sophia Theus, who filed a putative class action against Behrman Brothers IV, LLC and Behrman Brothers Management Corp. (collectively, "Behrman"). Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), alleging that Behrman, as a "single employer" with Atherotech, Inc., failed to provide 60 days' notice before mass layoffs in February 2016 when Atherotech facilities closed. Behrman moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) and to drop defendants under Rule 21. The Court denied all of Behrman's motions, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Behrman's liability under the WARN Act based on factors like common ownership, common directors/officers, unity of personnel policies, and de facto control.

WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffPlant ClosingUnpaid WagesEmployee BenefitsCorporate LiabilitySingle Employer DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. v. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was fired after failing a drug test and subsequently applied for unemployment benefits with the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). The TWC initially approved King's benefits but later reversed its decision, denying benefits and ordering repayment. King sought judicial review, first in Travis County and then refiling in Bastrop County, missing the statutory 14-day deadline for filing. Both the TWC and Heart Hospital filed pleas to the jurisdiction, asserting that King's failure to adhere to the deadline deprived the court of jurisdiction. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the TWC's plea, ruling that the 14-day filing deadline is a jurisdictional prerequisite and that King's non-compliance meant the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlineJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPlea to the JurisdictionEquitable TollingTexas Labor CodeTravis CountyBastrop County
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 170 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