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
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 05-17-01187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Linda Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC.

This case involves an appeal from a jury trial where Dallas Performance, LLC (DP) and Taylor Sims prevailed against Linda Douglas. Linda had sued DP for conversion, wrongful detention of her vehicle, and other claims after DP retained her car due to unpaid repair and storage fees. The jury found in favor of DP and Sims, awarding them $9,000.00 for breach of contract regarding storage fees and $3,200.00 in quantum meruit for motor work. The appellees, DP and Sims, argue that the trial court's judgment, which was entered in accordance with the jury's findings, should be affirmed. They assert their right to a possessory lien on the vehicle and that Linda agreed to the storage fee policy and additional work performed on her car.

Motor Vehicle RepairPossessory LienStorage FeesQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesConversionWrongful DetainerDallas PerformanceLinda Douglas
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Performance Insurance Co. v. Frans

This case concerns an appeal by Performance Insurance Company, a workers' compensation carrier, against a trial court's judgment regarding the apportionment of a settlement. The carrier had paid death benefits to the survivors of Michael D. Frans and subsequently intervened in a lawsuit filed by the beneficiaries against third-party tortfeasors. The trial court approved a settlement of $200,000 and apportioned the proceeds between Ms. Frans and her son, Michael Jr., prior to reimbursing the carrier's $104,404 lien. The carrier argued this apportionment improperly reduced its statutory subrogation recovery and credit. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not following the statutory sequence for payment, which dictates costs and attorney's fees first, then carrier reimbursement, and finally any excess to beneficiaries. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienSettlement ApportionmentDeath BenefitsThird-Party TortfeasorStatutory InterpretationDouble RecoveryReimbursementMedical MalpracticeBeneficiary Claims
References
7
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenberg Development Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc.

Imperial Performing Arts, Inc. (IPA) sued Rosenberg Development Corporation (RDC) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. RDC filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming governmental immunity from suit. The trial court partially granted and partially denied RDC's plea. On interlocutory appeal, RDC challenged the denial of its plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's partial denial, holding that economic development corporations like RDC generally do not possess common law governmental immunity from suit for contract claims. The court further clarified that the statutory immunity granted to Type B corporations under Local Government Code § 505.106 is limited to tort claims and immunity from liability for damages, neither of which supported RDC's plea for immunity from suit in this contract dispute.

Governmental ImmunityEconomic Development CorporationPlea to JurisdictionBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsPolitical SubdivisionsCommon Law ImmunityStatutory Immunity
References
34
Case No. E2014-00192-COA-R3-CV-FILED-MAY 26, 2015
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Borla Performance Industries, Inc. v. Universal Tool and Engineering, Inc.

Borla Performance Industries, Inc. (Borla) sued Universal Tool and Engineering, Inc. (UTE) for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regarding machine repairs. Borla alleged lost profits due to UTE's delays. The trial court dismissed Borla's misrepresentation and TCPA claims, awarded Borla $11,839.98 for breach of contract on Michigan benders, but denied lost profits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Borla failed to prove lost profits with reasonable certainty and no deceptive practices for the TCPA claim, while upholding UTE's breach on the Michigan benders.

Breach of ContractLost ProfitsTennessee Consumer Protection ActAppellate ReviewBench TrialSufficiency of EvidenceDamagesEconomic DownturnPlant RelocationMachine Repair
References
20
Case No. 05-20-00630-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Linda Douglas v. Dallas Performance, LLC

Linda Douglas appeals a take-nothing judgment from a jury verdict regarding her claims for conversion and wrongful detention of her vehicle by Dallas Performance, LLC, and attorney's fees. Dallas Performance cross-appeals for its attorney's fees. The court reverses the trial court's judgment on Douglas's claims for conversion, wrongful detention, and attorney's fees under Property Code section 70.008, finding Dallas Performance had no right to retain her car after authorized repairs were paid. The court affirms the take-nothing judgment on Dallas Performance's attorney's fees claims. The case is remanded for further proceedings concerning Douglas's damages and attorney's fees.

ConversionWrongful DetentionTrespass to ChattelsMechanic's LienAttorney's FeesProperty CodeStorage FeesVehicle RepossessionAppellate ReviewRemand
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Mosaic & Terrazzo Welfare, Pension, Annuity & Vacation Funds v. High Performance Floors, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various employee benefit funds, brought this action under ERISA and LMRA to collect employer contributions from defendants HPF, Inc. and High Performance Floors, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that HPF was an alter ego of, or single employer with, High Performance, aiming to evade obligations under a collective bargaining agreement. Following a non-jury trial, U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold concluded that High Performance and HPF were indeed alter egos and constituted a single employer. This determination was based on compelling evidence of shared management, employees, operations, equipment, and a common business purpose, coupled with an intent to circumvent union obligations. Consequently, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for the unpaid contributions.

Alter Ego DoctrineSingle Employer DoctrineERISA EnforcementLMRA LitigationUnpaid Employer ContributionsCollective Bargaining Agreement BreachEmployee Benefit Fund ProtectionCorporate DisregardLabor Relations LawJoint and Several Liability
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02769 [195 AD3d 140]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Robinson v. Great Performances/Artists as Waitresses, Inc.

This class action sought unpaid gratuities under Labor Law § 196-d. The central question was whether an employer has a right to contractual indemnification from a third party for claims brought under this statute. The court determined that contractual indemnification in this context is against public policy, citing similar rulings on other labor laws like the FLSA. The Supreme Court had dismissed the third-party complaint, and this appellate decision affirmed that dismissal, stating that allowing such indemnification would undermine employers' willingness to comply with their statutory obligations.

unpaid gratuitiesLabor Lawcontractual indemnificationpublic policyemployer liabilitywage violationsFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)third-party claimsclass actionappellate review
References
12
Case No. 2025-20-3130
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2026

WILLIAMS, ASHTON v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC.

Ashton Williams, an order puller, alleged a right shoulder injury at work on January 29, 2025, after moving sauce cases. His employer, Performance Food Group, initially denied medical treatment and later fired him, denying his claim based on a perceived change in his story and a doctor's report indicating a chronic condition. The Court found Mr. Williams's testimony credible, despite minor discrepancies, and concluded he is likely to prove he was injured at work. Therefore, the Court ordered Performance Food Group to provide medical benefits and referred the case for investigation into penalties for bad-faith denial and delayed treatment.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingShoulder InjuryDenial of ClaimCausationEmployer LiabilityPenalty InvestigationUnauthorized TreatmentTennessee LawAttendance Rules
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,371 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