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. M1999-00516-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2000

Henry Eugene Hodges v. State

The appellant, Henry Eugene Hodges, appealed the Davidson County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his 1992 first-degree murder conviction and death sentence. The appeal raised issues concerning the effectiveness of trial counsel, the post-conviction court's failure to provide funds for expert services, and the denial of a continuance. The court concluded that the appellant was not denied effective assistance of counsel, the denial of funds for additional expert services was proper, and the denial of a continuance for the evidentiary hearing was appropriate. Consequently, the court affirmed the post-conviction court's finding that the appellant is not entitled to post-conviction relief.

Post-conviction reliefIneffective assistance of counselDeath penaltyCapital murderGuilty pleaLigature strangulationMedical expert testimonyMitigation evidenceExpert services fundingAppellate procedure
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationwide Distribution Services, Inc. v. Robert Jones and Poly Trucking, Inc.

National Distribution Services, Inc. (NDS) appealed the denial of its special appearance, arguing that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction and that NDS had not waived its right to contest jurisdiction. The appellate court found that NDS waived its special appearance by violating the due-order-of-hearing requirement of Rule 120a. NDS had filed motions to compel discovery and a motion for continuance, both relating to the merits of the case, and obtained rulings on them before its special appearance was heard. These actions were deemed inconsistent with NDS's challenge to the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order denying NDS's special appearance.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionWaiverDue Order of HearingRule 120aDiscovery MotionsMotion to CompelMotion for ContinuanceInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coreno v. American Transit Insurance

The plaintiff, injured in an automobile accident during employment, sought no-fault first-party benefits, but was denied due to alleged eligibility under the Railroad Retirement Act. The court clarified that while such benefits cannot be denied outright, the amount may be offset by Railroad Retirement Act sums. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was ultimately denied because a determination on his primary Railroad Retirement Act claim had not yet been received. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's arguments that potential wage continuation eligibility or a Federal tort suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act warranted denial of first-party benefits. The decision emphasized that any future wage continuation payments could be offset, but current denial on that basis was unwarranted as no payments had been received.

Workers' CompensationNo-fault BenefitsRailroad Retirement ActSummary JudgmentInsurance LawWage ContinuationFederal Employers' Liability ActOffsetPrimary CarrierDisability Benefits
References
2
Case No. 04-18-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

One Hundred Seventy-One Thousand One Hundred and 00/100 ($171,100.00) in U.S. Currency and One (1) 2012 Volkswagen Jetta, VIN3VWDP7AJ9CM333910 v. State

This is an appeal from a post-answer default judgment in favor of the State of Texas in a forfeiture case. Appellant Mirsha Contla challenged the trial court's denial of her motion for continuance and the overruling of her motion for new trial by operation of law. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the denial of the motion for continuance, finding no abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the motion for new trial, holding that Contla satisfied all three elements of the Craddock test. The court concluded that her failure to appear was not intentional, she presented a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to the State, thus reversing and remanding the cause for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for ContinuanceMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionForfeiture ProceedingsAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTexas LawConscious Indifference
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1991

Andrews v. Bible

This appeal from the Circuit Court of Anderson County concerns the denial of a Rule 11 sanctions motion. Defendants John and Paul Bible sought sanctions against plaintiff Georgia Andrews and her attorney, Michael W. Ritter, after a workers' compensation action was voluntarily nonsuited. The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed whether Ritter performed an objectively reasonable prefiling investigation and if Rule 11 imposes a continuing obligation to update pleadings. The court found Ritter's prefiling inquiry reasonable, considering the circumstances and time constraints before the statute of limitations. Aligning with most federal circuits, the court held that Tennessee's Rule 11 does not impose a continuing duty to reevaluate or withdraw documents once filed. Consequently, the trial court's denial of sanctions was affirmed.

Rule 11 SanctionsPrefiling InvestigationContinuing ObligationWorkers' CompensationAppellate LawAttorney MalpracticePleading StandardsLitigation AbuseObjective StandardJudicial Ethics
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&S Medical, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This legal text presents a dissenting opinion by Justice McCooe concerning a no-fault benefits claim. The case revolves around an injured assignor who was struck by a motor vehicle, leading to a denial of further orthopedic benefits by the defendant insurer effective January 26, 1999. Subsequently, the plaintiff assignee submitted a bill for physical therapy services, resulting in a partial payment and a second partial denial of claim from the insurer dated July 28, 1999. The central legal question is whether the defendant insurer was obligated to issue a second denial within 30 days for the continuing services. Justice McCooe argues that the initial denial provided sufficient advance notice of benefit termination, rendering a subsequent denial redundant and causing no prejudice to the claimant. The dissent concludes that the order denying summary judgment should be affirmed, with a hearing on the necessity of the therapy.

No-fault benefitsClaim denialInsurance lawAssignee's rightsNotice requirementsSummary judgmentDissenting opinionStatutory interpretationPrejudicePhysical therapy claims
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Claim of Torres v. T A D Technical Services Corp.

The claimant, a laborer, injured his left foot on the job. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was permanently partially disabled, experiencing continuing pain and requiring ongoing medical treatment, thus warranting continuing disability benefits over a schedule loss award. The employer appealed, arguing a denial of due process due to the absence of medical testimony and cross-examination. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the continuing disability award, and no prejudice resulted from the lack of cross-examination as experts agreed on the claimant's condition, only disagreeing on the classification as a schedule loss.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityContinuing Disability BenefitsSchedule Loss EvaluationMedical EvidenceDue Process RightsCross-ExaminationSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate Court DecisionOccupational Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 6,696 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