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

Central Power and Light Co. v. Sharp

Central Power and Light (CP&L) appealed a summary judgment concerning the Comptroller's interpretation of the Franchise Tax Act, specifically regarding the computation of a company's surplus. The core of the dispute involved CP&L's capitalization of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction-equity (AFUDC-equity) for its nuclear power plant, which it argued should not be capitalized for franchise tax purposes, leading to a three-million-dollar refund claim. CP&L contended that the Comptroller's interpretation resulted in unequal taxation, resurrected an unconstitutional 'books and records' rule, and constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding a rational basis for the disparate tax treatment between regulated and non-regulated entities due to regulated utilities' assurance of recovering AFUDC-equity through rate-making. The court also rejected CP&L's 'books and records' and delegation arguments, the latter on jurisdictional grounds.

Franchise Tax ActTax ClassificationRegulated UtilitiesAFUDC-equityCapitalizationAccounting PrinciplesConstitutional LawDelegation of PowerSummary JudgmentTax Refund
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Power Resource Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commisison of Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power Company

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Joseph Kilcer, a volunteer firefighter and former employee at a hazardous waste site, suffered a toxic brain injury. He filed two workers' compensation claims: one against Columbia County Cause and Origin Team (CCCOT) for carbon monoxide exposure at a fire scene, and another against his employer (third-party defendant) for chemical exposure at the remediation site. The Workers’ Compensation Board found a compensable injury against CCCOT, ruling the injury was solely caused by the fire scene exposure. Kilcer and his wife subsequently filed a tort action against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Environmental Resources Management, Inc., and Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., alleging his brain injury was due to chemical exposure at the remediation site. Defendants and the third-party defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing judicial estoppel. The Supreme Court denied these motions, but on appeal, the court reversed this decision. The appellate court applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel, finding Kilcer was barred from asserting an inconsistent position in the tort action regarding the cause of his injury, having previously maintained in the workers' compensation proceeding that the fire scene was the sole cause. Consequently, the complaint and third-party complaint were dismissed.

Judicial EstoppelInconsistent PositionsWorkers' Compensation ClaimToxic Brain InjuryCarbon Monoxide PoisoningHazardous Waste Remediation SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer Firefighter BenefitsCausation
References
7
Case No. E2015-02226-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2016

Sandra Clark v. Christopher Powers

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an automobile accident claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to non-compliance with service of process rules. Plaintiffs, Sandra and Sandy Clark, and defendant Christopher Powers's insurer, The General, had an agreement to defer service during settlement talks. Powers's underinsured motorist carrier, Allstate, later 'fronted' The General's policy limit to protect its subrogation rights. After the limitations period, Powers and Allstate moved for dismissal, but the trial court denied summary judgment based on equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that the agreement to forbear service was valid and ongoing, thus excusing the lack of formal service on Powers at the time the motion was filed.

Automobile AccidentStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessEquitable EstoppelSettlement NegotiationsUnderinsured Motorist CoverageSubrogation RightsSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06425 [131 AD3d 461]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Power v. Frasier

Joseph Power, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, and his wife, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when Power was struck by a vehicle driven by coemployee John Frasier in a parking lot. Power had received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The defendants, John Frasier and his father Edward M. Frasier, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy when both parties are coemployees acting within the scope of their employment. Since John Frasier was found to be acting within the scope of his employment, he was immune from direct liability, and his father could not be held vicariously liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsCoemployee ImmunitySummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentParking Lot AccidentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. E2011-01122-COA-R3-CV-FILED-FEBRUARY 21, 2012
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2012

Alstom Power, Inc. v. Sue Ann Head, Administrator, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Workers' Compensation Division

Alstom Power, Inc., an employer, challenged a worker's compensation claim and an order for medical benefits from the Tennessee Department of Labor, facing a $10,000 penalty. Alstom sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and certiorari, but the Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, stating Alstom had not exhausted the administrative review process through the Benefit Review Conference (BRC). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, agreeing that the statutory scheme requires exhaustion of the BRC process for all workers' compensation disputes, including those concerning medical benefits and physician panels, before judicial review. The Court found Alstom's arguments regarding a lack of meaningful review to be without merit, thus upholding the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ExhaustionSubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCertiorariBenefit Review ConferenceMedical BenefitsPhysician PanelAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 03-08-00472-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2009

Patricia Ann Powers v. Fremont Industrial Indemnity Company C/O TPCIGA Carrier

Patricia Ann Powers appealed the dismissal of her worker's compensation benefits suit, which was sanctioned for discovery abuse by the trial court. The trial court found Powers demonstrated "continuing and flagrant bad faith" by failing to accept discovery notices and court orders, and repeatedly not appearing for scheduled depositions, despite being warned of potential dismissal. Powers asserted that the appellee also committed discovery abuse and that the trial court was biased. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court acted within its sound discretion in dismissing the lawsuit due to Powers's refusal to participate in the normal legal process she initiated.

Discovery AbuseDismissal SanctionWorker's CompensationPro Se LitigantFailure to AppearCourt OrdersAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionMemorandum OpinionCivil Procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zasada v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

The plaintiffs, John Kline and the estate of Ronald E. Pollen, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Schoharie County, which dismissed their complaint against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The original action sought damages for injuries and death sustained in 1969 when a crane, operated by the plaintiffs, contacted live power lines owned by Niagara Mohawk. The trial court had found insufficient notice to establish foreseeability of the hazard. On appeal, the court determined that the record contained sufficient evidence of constructive notice regarding the extensive construction project and the likelihood of equipment operating near the power lines. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that a jury could rationally find negligence on the part of Niagara Mohawk, and ordered a new trial.

Appellate ReviewNegligenceForeseeabilityConstructive NoticePower LinesWorkplace AccidentCrane OperationDismissal ReversedNew Trial OrderedUtility Company Liability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,700 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