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

Diana G-D v. Bedford Central School District

Diana G-D, a third-grader, was allegedly sexually abused by her stepfather, Cesar Joel Sagastume Morales, between December 2005 and August 2006. Her mother, Ann D., learned of the abuse in August 2006 and reported it to the police, leading to Sagastume Morales's eventual conviction. Diana G-D, through her mother, sued the Bedford Central School District, principal Victoria Graboski, and school psychologist Kelly Cieslinski-Schleuter for negligence in failing to report suspected abuse as required by Social Services Law § 413. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to report based on the available information and that any failure was not 'knowing and willful.' The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no 'reasonable cause' to suspect abuse that would trigger a mandatory reporting duty.

Child abuseSexual abuseNegligenceSocial Services LawMandatory reportingSchool liabilitySummary judgmentReasonable causeKnowing and willful failureQualified immunity
References
14
Case No. W2017-00551-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

In Re: Last Will and Testament of Mary Theresse Erde

This case is a will contest concerning the holographic will of Mary Theresse Erde. Appellant Carl Barton challenged the will, claiming lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Beneficiary Deborah Lawson. The trial court denied Barton's motion to set aside the order admitting the will to probate and found that Decedent possessed testamentary capacity and that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in striking Barton's amended counter-petition due to futility and upholding the findings regarding testamentary capacity and the rebuttal of undue influence through independent legal advice and lack of suspicious circumstances.

Will contestHolographic willTestamentary capacityUndue influenceConfidential relationshipIndependent legal adviceFutility of amendmentRule 15.01 Tennessee Civil ProcedureRule 60.02 Tennessee Civil ProcedureAppellate review
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John R. Wills, Jr. v. The City of Memphis

John R. Wills, Jr., sought to subdivide his property, Lot 94, in the Belle Meade Subdivision into two lots, but his application was denied by the Memphis and Shelby County Land Use Control Board and the Memphis City Council. Wills subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari, leading the Chancery Court of Shelby County to reverse the City Council's decision and remand the case for a rehearing. The City of Memphis and the Memphis City Council appealed this decision. The appellate court identified an ambiguity in the Unified Development Code (UDC) regarding the applicability of "contextual infill development standards" (Section 3.9.2) to Wills' property, specifically concerning the definition of "development" in the context of surrounding properties established before 1950. The court concluded that the trial court's ruling, which stated Wills' application complied with all UDC provisions, was premature. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's order, remanding the case for further proceedings to the City Council to definitively interpret and apply UDC Section 3.9.2(B)(1) based on the existing record.

ZoningSubdivision RegulationsLand Use ControlUnified Development Code (UDC)Administrative ReviewWrit of CertiorariAppellate ReviewArbitrary and Capricious DecisionStatutory InterpretationRemand Order
References
44
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. W2024-01234-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

Celeste Lachapelle as the beneficiary of the will of James Russell Pace v. Blanchard E. Tual

Appellant Celeste LaChapelle sued the law firm Tual Graves, PLLC, and attorney Blanchard E. Tual for professional negligence. LaChapelle alleged that the firm negligently prepared a will for her fiancé, James Russell Pace, which was later invalidated in Mississippi due to improper execution. The trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm, concluding that LaChapelle's claim accrued in May 2021 when she had to respond to the will contest, thereby exceeding the one-year statute of limitations. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error, and agreed that the claim accrued when LaChapelle incurred expenses defending the will. The court also rejected the argument of fraudulent concealment by the appellees, stating that reasonable diligence would have led to the discovery of the injury earlier.

Professional negligenceLegal malpracticeStatute of limitationsDiscovery ruleWill contestProbate lawFraudulent concealmentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAccrual of claim
References
42
Case No. ADJ4704248 (SJO 0269173)
Regular
Feb 09, 2012

MATTHEW WILL (Deceased), DIANA WILL (Widow) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether the deceased firefighter Matthew Will's minor children are entitled to continuation benefits beyond the standard death benefit. The defendant argued that continuation benefits under Labor Code section 4703.5 are only available when there is no surviving totally dependent parent, and since the widow qualifies, the children are not eligible. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, holding that the amendment to section 4703.5 intended to augment benefits rather than restrict them. They found the reference to section 3501 was to clarify which children qualify, not to preclude benefits when a parent survives.

WCABMatthew WillDiana WillDepartment of Forestry and Fire ProtectionLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderDeath BenefitsLabor Code section 4702
References
2
Case No. 02-12-00318-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Will Williams v. America First Lloyds Insurance

Will Williams appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to America First Lloyds Insurance regarding his workers' compensation claim. Williams challenged a 0% impairment rating for a workplace injury, contending it should be 19%. The trial court granted summary judgment based on Williams's failure to respond to requests for admissions, which were subsequently deemed admitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no violation of due process rights, as Williams demonstrated a callous disregard for responding to the requests and provided no good cause for his inaction or evidence of fraud.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingDeemed AdmissionsDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTexas LawCivil ProcedureHernia Injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Wills

The case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of attorney Don Wills, who was sued for legal malpractice by Yuman Black. Black's original worker's compensation claim was dismissed in November 1982 due to Wills' failure to appear for trial. Black subsequently filed a malpractice suit against Wills in April 1985, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty. Wills sought summary judgment, arguing the two-year statute of limitations applied, which the appellate court affirmed. The court ruled that legal malpractice actions are tortious in nature and subject to a two-year statute of limitations, and Black failed to timely plead or prove facts for the discovery rule to apply. Black's motion for a new trial based on 'newly discovered evidence' was also denied due to lack of due diligence.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleTort LawContract LawGross NegligenceBreach of ContractBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentAppeal
References
27
Case No. 14-05-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2006

Diana J. Kemp v. Rebecca D. Havens

Rebecca D. Havens sued Diana J. Kemp for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision. Kemp stipulated to liability, and the trial focused on damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, and physical impairment, which the jury awarded to Havens. On appeal, Kemp challenged the causal link between the collision and the damages awarded, specifically questioning the evidence of newly herniated disks and the admission of Havens' testimony about needing future surgery. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict as a whole and no cumulative error. The court noted Kemp's failure to preserve certain factual sufficiency complaints and affirmed the trial court's discretion in admitting testimony.

Personal InjuryAutomobile CollisionNegligenceDamagesMedical ExpensesPain and SufferingPhysical ImpairmentHerniated DisksWhiplashExpert Testimony
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diana Ruiz Esparza v. University of Texas at El Paso

Diana Ruiz Esparza sued The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) under the TCHRA, alleging age, national origin, and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The trial court dismissed all claims, granting UTEP's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Esparza's disparate pay, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims. However, the court reversed and remanded Esparza's age, sex, and national origin discrimination claims, allowing her an opportunity to amend her pleadings to include her "without pay" suspensions as adverse employment actions.

DiscriminationEmployment LawAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTexas Commission of Human Rights ActTCHRAAdverse Employment Action
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 1,663 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