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

Atlantic Casualty Insurance v. Value Waterproofing, Inc.

Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Value Waterproofing, Inc. in an underlying breach of contract and negligence lawsuit. Value counterclaimed, requesting a declaration that Atlantic Casualty was required to defend and indemnify. The court granted Atlantic Casualty's request, finding that Value failed to provide timely notice of the claim, thereby prejudicing Atlantic Casualty's investigation capabilities. Additionally, the court ruled that Value's work on a commercial property was not covered by its residential-only roofing insurance policy, further justifying the denial of coverage.

Insurance disputeBreach of contractNegligenceDeclaratory judgmentTimely noticeCoverage exclusionCommercial General LiabilityResidential roofingPolicy interpretationPrejudice
References
46
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04527 [196 AD3d 988]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2021

Matter of Cardona v. DRG Constr. LLC

In 2018, claimant Alex Adonias Pinto Cardona was injured during construction work, leading to a workers' compensation claim. A dispute arose regarding his employment status with DRG Construction LLC, a subcontractor, and Avitus Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO) providing payroll and HR services to DRG. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found Avitus to be a proper employer and American Zurich Insurance Company, Avitus's insurer, to be the responsible carrier for benefits. Avitus and American Zurich appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship between DRG and the claimant and that Avitus and American Zurich failed to demonstrate that the claimant was not covered by the insurance policy.

Employer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Insurance CoverageSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction InjuryPayroll ServicesHuman Resources OutsourcingAdministrative ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Korthals v. Valu Home Centers, Inc.

Claimant sustained back injuries in 2003 and 2009 while employed by Valu Home Centers, Inc. and Spectrum Human Services, respectively. A 2009 independent medical examination apportioned liability for her condition across both injuries and prior motor vehicle accidents. After claimant's 2011 back surgery, Spectrum's carrier requested further action, prompting Valu's carrier to seek a liability transfer for the 2003 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this transfer, ruling no prior request to reopen the 2003 claim existed. The Special Fund appealed, contending the 2009 medical report served as an application to reopen. The court reversed the Board's decision, determining that the medical report submitted in 2009 indeed constituted a timely application to reopen the 2003 claim, thereby preventing liability transfer to the Special Fund.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability ApportionmentClaim ReopeningIndependent Medical ExaminationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewBack InjuryPrior InjurySeven-Year Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

In Re Continental Airlines Corp.

The case concerns Continental Airlines' motion to disallow or estimate at zero value the contract rejection damages claimed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) following Continental's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Continental had rejected its collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, and ALPA subsequently filed a $408 million claim for damages. The court asserted jurisdiction over the claim, rejecting ALPA's argument for deferral to a specialized tribunal. The court ultimately concluded that ALPA's claim for lost future wages lacked merit because the collective bargaining agreement did not guarantee employment and Continental would have ceased operations regardless. Additionally, the court found ALPA's damage calculations flawed as they extended beyond the contract's termination date. Consequently, the court disallowed ALPA's claim entirely and estimated its value at zero.

BankruptcyContract RejectionCollective Bargaining AgreementAirline IndustryLabor LawDamages EstimationBankruptcy JurisdictionArbitration DeferralRailway Labor ActChapter 11 Reorganization
References
90
Case No. ADJ9944770
Regular
Oct 19, 2018

Sam Zavalata vs. Conifer Value Based Care, LLC

This case involves applicant Sam Zavaleta's workers' compensation claim for psychiatric and orthopedic injuries against Conifer Value Based Care, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the trial judge's decision, finding that the medical opinions from both the orthopedic and psychiatric evaluators required further development. Specifically, issues exist regarding the orthopedic causation of cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's psyche, back, neck, and wrist, as well as the substantial causation of the psychiatric injury in relation to the defendant's good faith personnel action defense. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderPsychiatric InjuryCumulative TraumaPersonnel Action DefenseGood FaithCausationMedical OpinionApportionment
References
12
Case No. 06-12-00016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

in the Matter of the Marriage of Betty Janis Edwards and Marvin Laverl Edwards

Marvin Laverl Edwards appealed a trial court's property division in his divorce from Betty Janis Edwards. Betty was awarded reimbursement for the enhanced value of Laverl's separate real estate and for the value of cattle purchases, as well as appellate attorney's fees. Laverl challenged these awards, arguing Betty failed to establish the portion of enhanced value attributable to her separate funds, and that the cattle funds were commingled community property. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the reimbursement for the enhanced property value to the community estate, and that any mischaracterization of cattle funds as separate property was harmless as Betty was awarded half the net value. The court also upheld the conditional award of appellate attorney's fees to Betty.

DivorceProperty DivisionCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyReimbursementEnhanced ValueAppellate Attorney's FeesTexas Family LawMarital EstateEquitable Lien
References
38
Case No. 2-05-355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

Twenty Wings Ltd., D/B/A Hooters v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission Partnership for Community Values The Hon. Bill Zedler The Hon. Ron Wright The Hon. Steve McCollum Mrs. Leslie Recine Mrs. Melba McDow The Hon. Patricia A. Hardy Mr. Barry D. Johnson Mrs. Reland Gonzalez

This case addresses whether a trial court possessed the authority to issue a writ of mandamus compelling an administrative law judge to dismiss an administrative proceeding based on res judicata. Twenty Wings, Ltd. d/b/a Hooters, sought a mixed beverage permit, which was contested by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and other appellees. After the administrative law judge (ALJ) denied a motion to dismiss, the appellees filed a proceeding in district court, which subsequently granted a writ of mandamus. The appellate court determined that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the TABC and the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to adjudicate the substantive legal and factual issues concerning mixed beverage permits. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject matter jurisdiction to issue the mandamus order.

MandamusExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative LawRes JudicataAlcoholic Beverage PermitTexas CourtsAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionTABCSOAH
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Rochelle G. v. Harold M. G.

This divorce action concerns the equitable distribution of marital assets, specifically the valuation of the Husband's law practice and professional license. Following the McSparron v McSparron decision, the court reopened the trial for additional proof on the license's value. The court determined the valuation date for the law firm interest to be the commencement date, July 30, 1992, rejecting the Husband's argument for a later trial date based on market changes. It extensively discusses methodologies for valuing the Husband's law license and enhanced earnings potential, ultimately concluding the marital asset value of the license for distribution is $1,547,000. The decision also addresses the anti-duplication rule regarding the license value and maintenance awards.

Equitable DistributionProfessional License ValuationLaw Practice ValuationMarital AssetsDivorceSpousal MaintenanceDouble CountingValuation DateActive Passive AssetsEnhanced Earnings
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terex Utilities, Inc. v. Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc.

Terex Utilities, Inc. leased a custom digger derrick truck to Republic Intelligent Transportation Services, Inc. The truck was severely damaged in an accident, leading Terex to sue for breach of contract, asserting Republic failed to pay the full replacement value as per their agreement. Terex sought the cost of a new 2009 truck, while Republic argued for the market value of the 2007 truck or its actual cash value. The trial court denied Terex's motion for summary judgment and granted Republic's. On appeal, the court found genuine issues of material fact regarding the valuation of the truck and the interpretation of "full-replacement value," affirming the denial of Terex's motion, but reversing the grant of Republic's, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentContract interpretationFull replacement valueMarket valueProperty damageRental agreementEquipment leaseAppellate reviewTexas civil procedure
References
11
Case No. No. 22-0620
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, by and Through Marya Crigler, Acting in Her Official Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District

The dissenting opinion in Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District challenges the majority's interpretation of Texas Tax Code Section 42.02(a)(1) regarding property tax appraisal appeals. Justice Boyd argues that limitations on such appeals are jurisdictional and that a district court's review of an appraisal review board order should not be confined solely to the grounds raised in the property owner's initial protest. The dissent asserts that the Tax Code and Texas Constitution mandate that appraised values must reflect both "equal and uniform" taxation and the property's "market value," and therefore, the district court should be able to address market value even if not initially protested. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the court of appeals' judgment but disagrees with the prohibition on the district court addressing the market-value issue on remand. Consequently, Justice Boyd respectfully dissents in part.

Property TaxAppraisal LawJurisdictional LimitsMarket ValueEqual and Uniform TaxationDe Novo ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas Tax CodeTexas ConstitutionJudicial Review
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 497 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