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

Claim of Moysello v. David

The claimant, a taxicab driver for David’s Taxi and David Enterprises, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2007. An investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Charles David and David Enterprises were the uninsured "true owners" and employers. A workers’ compensation law judge found them to be employers and uninsured, a decision affirmed by the Board, which found they met the presumptive definition of employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (former [3]) and had proper jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that proper notice of the hearing was received despite competing address claims.

Motor Vehicle AccidentTaxicab DriverEmployer DefinitionUninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawNotice of HearingBoard ReviewAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceCorporate Ownership
References
1
Case No. 06-05-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Pilgrim`s Pride Corporation and David Franklin Sharp, Jr. v. David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu

This case involves a motor vehicle accident where David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu were rear-ended by a truck driven by David Franklin Sharp, Jr., for Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. The jury found Pilgrim's Pride 50% responsible and each plaintiff 25% responsible. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's application of comparative negligence statutes (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 33.012, 33.013). It found that the trial court erred in calculating damages and modified the judgment, reducing the awards for Cernat and Ciupitu to correctly apply the comparative negligence principles. The court also affirmed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's awards for lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentComparative NegligenceDamages CalculationAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyLost Earning CapacityFuture Medical ExpensesPersonal InjuryStatutory Interpretation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David J.

This dissenting opinion argues against the Family Court's decision to return Candice, Christine, and David to their parents, Roslyn K. and Steven K., after the petitioner charged the parents with neglect. The parents previously fled the state with the children, violating a court order. The dissent cites medical neglect of the daughters, alleged physical abuse and extreme isolation of David by his stepfather, and the mother's refusal to send David to school. The dissenting judge concludes that the parents' non-compliance and bizarre behavior create an imminent risk to the children's well-being, advocating for continued foster care.

Child neglectParental non-complianceChild welfareFamily Court proceedingsChild abuse allegationsMedical care refusalEducational neglectDissenting opinionBest interests of childTemporary removal order
References
9
Case No. 14-17-00739-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2019

Center Rose Partners, Ltd., Individually and Derivatively as a Member of Rose Acquisition LLC, David Felt, Nicole Felt, and Lloyd Hall v. Jerry W. Bailey and David Sonnier

This case involves an appeal from a judgment rendered on an arbitration award. The appellees, Jerry W. Bailey and David Sonnier, moved to dismiss the appeal, citing various grounds including lack of standing for one appellant, estoppel for another, and a general waiver of appeal rights by all appellants. The appellate court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the 'non-appealable' language in the arbitration agreement pertained to the arbitration award itself, not the trial court's judgment. The court also concluded that estoppel did not apply to Center Rose Partners and that appellant Lloyd Hall had standing. On the merits of the appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying their applications to vacate the arbitration award. The court addressed and rejected arguments regarding arbitrators exceeding their powers and failing to address a statute-of-limitations defense.

ArbitrationAppealMotion to DismissContract LawCorporate LawLimited Liability CompanyWaiver of AppealEstoppelStandingTexas Arbitration Act
References
33
Case No. LAO 858651
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

DAVID NISHIZAWA vs. MUHLHAUSER STEEL COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Muhlhauser Steel Company's petition for reconsideration of an award for applicant David Nishizawa's psychiatric injury. The Board adopted the WCJ's report finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and that defenses like the post-termination rule did not apply. The Board specifically excluded a non-citable case from the WCJ's reasoning, stating the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDavid NishizawaMuhlhauser Steel CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundLAO 858651Order Denying ReconsiderationWCJAuguster decisionpsychiatric injuryAOE/COE
References
8
Case No. 13-18-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2019

Ramona Rogers, M. D., Modesto Zambrano, Stephanie Cumpian, Rolando Flores, Hector Ontiveros, Priscilla Nieto, Sonia Hernandez-Keeble, Blas Ortiz, Jr., David Moron, M. D., Jaime Flores and Rio Grande State Center v. David Saxon Bagley, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jeremiah Ray Bagley

David Saxon Bagley sued healthcare providers and Rio Grande State Center (RGSC) for the death of his son, Joshua, who died after being physically restrained at RGSC. The claims included negligence and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellants argued that the claims were healthcare liability claims (HCLCs) requiring an expert report under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.351. The appellate court agreed that the claims met the HCLC definition. However, the court ultimately held that § 1983 preempts the expert report requirement of § 74.351 in cases involving excessive force against healthcare institutions or providers, thereby affirming the trial court's denial of the appellants' motion to dismiss.

Civil Rights ClaimExcessive ForceHealthcare Liability ClaimPreemption DoctrineState ActorsMedical MalpracticeExpert Report RequirementMental Health PatientsPhysical RestraintTexas Medical Liability Act
References
45
Case No. 12-14-00302-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Corrine Augustine Nichols Hill Shearer v. David Shearer, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of John William Shearer, III

Corrine Augustine Nichols Hill Shearer appeals a judgment from the County Court at Law No. 2 in Gregg County. David Shearer, the Appellee, obtained a jury verdict on three causes of action against Corrine Shearer. The jury unanimously found that Corrine Shearer breached an informal fiduciary duty to David Shearer, awarding $35,000 in mental anguish damages and $10,000 in exemplary damages for malice. Additionally, the jury found that Corrine Shearer intentionally inflicted emotional distress on David Shearer by wrongfully disposing of John Shearer’s ashes, awarding $1,500 in mental anguish damages. Corrine Shearer appeals, arguing insufficient evidence for the existence of an informal fiduciary duty based on factors not included in the jury charge. David Shearer contends that Corrine Shearer failed to preserve error and that, even if preserved, the factors she relies on are not required or are sufficiently supported by evidence. David Shearer also argues that intentional infliction of emotional distress was the only available cause of action for the wrongful disposal of his father's ashes.

Fiduciary dutyEmotional distressWrongful disposal of remainsJury verdictAppellate reviewMedical decisionsLegal authorityConversion claimMarital dissolutionTexas law
References
57
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02784 [194 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

David v. David

The infant plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs sought approval for a settlement, but Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the administrator of the infant plaintiff's mother's self-funded employee benefit plan, asserted a subrogation lien for medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied the lien, citing New York's anti-subrogation statute, General Obligations Law § 5-335. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the self-funded plan was governed by ERISA, which preempts the state anti-subrogation statute. Consequently, the subrogation lien was deemed enforceable against the settlement proceeds.

ERISA PreemptionSubrogation LienSelf-Funded Employee BenefitsPersonal Injury SettlementAnti-Subrogation StatuteAppellate DivisionInfant CompromiseAutomobile AccidentReimbursement ClaimsNew York Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 961 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