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. 02 Civ. 8428(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Professional Sound Services, Inc. v. Guzzi

Plaintiff Professional Sound Services, Inc. (PSS) sued Gotham Sound and Communications, Inc., Roland J. Guzzi, and Peter Schneider, alleging product disparagement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, along with several state law claims. PSS contended that Guzzi made disparaging statements about PSS to its customers and that Gotham's use of the letter "S" in its inventory codes constituted trademark infringement of PSS's purported "S" mark. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims. The court found that PSS failed to demonstrate widespread dissemination for its disparagement claim and that its "S" mark lacked inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning necessary for trademark protection. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Lanham ActProduct DisparagementFalse Designation of OriginTrademark InfringementSummary JudgmentCommercial SpeechDistinctivenessSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid Factors
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Precision Solar Controls, Inc.

The State of Texas, through the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), initiated a lawsuit against Precision Solar Controls, Inc., alleging breach of contract and warranty due to defective traffic signals. Precision Solar denied these claims and filed a counterclaim for business disparagement, asserting that TxDOT wrongfully publicized its products as faulty. The State attempted to dismiss the counterclaim by filing a plea to the jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity. However, the trial court denied this plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that by voluntarily filing the initial lawsuit, the State waived its sovereign immunity with respect to counterclaims germane to its original suit, and found Precision Solar's business disparagement claim sufficiently related to the case.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionBusiness DisparagementBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dworschak v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

Appellant Ivo Dworschak appealed a trial court's no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. Dworschak was terminated from Transocean following an altercation with a subcontractor employee. He subsequently filed claims against Transocean for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, slander, defamation, business disparagement, and age discrimination. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Dworschak was an at-will employee and thus his contract and wrongful discharge claims failed. Furthermore, the court determined that Transocean's actions did not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct for emotional distress, nor was there sufficient evidence of malice for defamation or business disparagement. Lastly, Dworschak failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his age discrimination claim.

Employment LawAt-Will EmploymentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationBusiness DisparagementAge DiscriminationAdministrative RemediesLabor Code
References
28
Case No. 05-13-01365-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2015

John C. McConnell, M.D. v. Coventry Health Care National Network and First Health Group Corp. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

John C. McConnell, M.D. appealed the trial court's summary judgment rejecting his claims against Coventry Health Care National Network, First Health Group Corp., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. McConnell, an orthopedic surgeon, was terminated as a workers' compensation network provider by Coventry after Liberty Mutual complained about his critical comments in patient medical records regarding Liberty's practices. McConnell alleged breach of contract and tortious interference against Coventry, and tortious interference, business disparagement, and conspiracy against Liberty. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, which McConnell appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Coventry's actions were privileged under contract and McConnell failed to prove essential elements of his claims against Liberty, including falsity for business disparagement and underlying torts for conspiracy.

Workers' CompensationHealth Care NetworkProvider TerminationTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentContract BreachBusiness DisparagementAppellate ReviewDue DiligenceMedical Records
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Way of San Antonio, Inc. v. Helping Hands Lifeline Foundation, Inc.

This is a dissenting opinion by Justice Antonio G. Cantu regarding a majority's decision on a motion for rehearing. The primary case involved claims of slander, libel, and business disparagement brought by Helping Hands Lifeline Foundation and Ruth Mahl against United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County, Inc. and Dick Brown. The dissent argues that the majority improperly reversed and remanded on the business disparagement issue, believing that Helping Hands failed to preserve this complaint for appellate review due to a lack of specific and timely objections to expert testimony at trial. Justice Cantu details the trial court's proceedings regarding the expert witness, Dean Barbara Aldave, who testified that the statements in question were not defamatory. The dissent contends that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Aldave's testimony and that Helping Hands waived its objections, suggesting the judgment should have been reformed and otherwise affirmed.

DefamationSlanderLibelBusiness DisparagementExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidencePreservation of ErrorMotion for RehearingDissenting OpinionTrial Procedure
References
36
Case No. 03-17-00707-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

CoreALM, LLC v. Keen Fusion, Inc.

CoreALM, LLC appealed a trial court's judgment that awarded Keen Fusion, Inc. damages for tortious interference with contract and business disparagement. CoreALM contended that the economic loss rule barred the award and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that the economic loss rule did not preclude Keen Fusion's recovery on its tort claims because the duty not to interfere with contractual relationships arises from common law, independent of any contractual agreement between the interfering party and the party whose contract was interfered with. The court also found factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that CoreALM tortiously interfered with Keen Fusion’s contract with eCommQuest, which proximately caused Keen Fusion to lose an engagement with Johnson Controls. Given the valid finding on tortious interference, the court did not address the challenge to the business disparagement claim.

Tortious Interference with ContractEconomic Loss RuleBusiness DisparagementContract BreachAppellate ReviewFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceProximate CauseCommon Law DutyIndependent Contractor DisputeSubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. 01-18-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

McDonald Oilfield Operations, LLC v. 3B Inspection, LLC Robert Beall, Chris Myrand, Kyle Grant, Patrick Bage and Dylan Rogge

This case involves a dispute between McDonald Oilfield Operations, LLC (Appellant) and 3B Inspection, LLC, along with its individual employees (Appellees). The Appellees filed suit alleging business disparagement, defamation, and tortious interference with a contract, based on McDonald Oilfield's alleged false statements and the suspension of Operator Qualifications for Appellees' employees. McDonald Oilfield sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing their communications related to public concern regarding oil and gas pipeline safety. The trial court denied the dismissal motion. The appellate court reversed, concluding that McDonald Oilfield's actions fell under the TCPA's free speech protections and that 3B Inspection failed to provide clear and specific evidence for their claims, particularly regarding damages for defamation and business disparagement, and specific contract breach for tortious interference. The court also affirmed that McDonald Oilfield's TCPA motion for dismissal, costs, and attorney's fees survived the Appellees' nonsuit of certain claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

TexasCourt of AppealsTCPAAnti-SLAPPDefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceFree SpeechOil and Gas IndustryPipeline Monitoring
References
28
Case No. 05-19-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Erin Walker v. Pegasus Eventing, LLC, Ellen Doughty-Hume And Alistair Hume

This appeal concerns an interlocutory order from the 422nd Judicial District Court of Kaufman County, Texas, regarding a motion to dismiss filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Appellant Erin Walker, a former client of appellees Pegasus Eventing, LLC, Ellen Doughty-Hume, and Alistair Hume, sought dismissal of their claims (business disparagement, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy) after making complaints to the United States Eventing Association (USEA) about Doughty-Hume's training methods. The core issue on appeal was the timeliness of the hearing on Walker's TCPA motion. The Court found that the hearing on Walker’s motion was untimely, occurring 109 days after service, exceeding the 90-day (or 120-day with court-allowed discovery) statutory deadline. The court rejected arguments that amended petitions or a Rule 11 agreement reset or extended the deadline. Consequently, Walker forfeited her TCPA motion. The Court affirmed the denial of Walker's motion to dismiss the business disparagement claim but reversed the grant of dismissal for the other claims and reversed the award of attorney's fees and sanctions to Walker, remanding the cause for further proceedings.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMotion to DismissTimelinessAppellate ProcedureRule 11 AgreementDiscovery ExtensionService of ProcessBusiness DisparagementTortious Interference
References
25
Case No. Court File No. 31
Regular Panel Decision

Quality Technology Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Co.

Plaintiff Quality Technology Company (QTC) was contracted by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for an employee concern program related to nuclear safety. Steven White, hired by TVA through defendants Stone & Webster and Stemar as Manager of Nuclear Power, allegedly made changes to QTC's role and publicly disparaged QTC's performance. QTC sued White, Stone & Webster, Stemar, and Beta, Inc. (whose principal made a critical remark during an investigation) for state law torts (inducement to breach contract, tortious interference, trade disparagement/defamation) and a Fifth Amendment due process violation. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding White immune from state tort claims due to absolute official immunity, as his actions were discretionary and within his official duties. The court also ruled that QTC had no protected 'property' or 'liberty' interest under the Fifth Amendment, as the alleged defamatory statements were not sufficiently stigmatizing to violate constitutional rights, and even if so, White would be entitled to qualified immunity. The court found Beta, Inc. not liable for its principal's statement, as it was made in a confidential investigation and not publicly disseminated by them. The civil action was dismissed, and QTC's subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied.

Absolute Official ImmunityQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentState Law TortsTortious InterferenceTrade DisparagementDefamationFifth AmendmentDue ProcessProperty Interest
References
127
Case No. ADJ9710957
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

DAVY NOEUN vs. MAGTEK, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO MARINE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a petition for removal before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB denied the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued. The WCAB further admonished the petitioner's counsel for disparaging remarks made in the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportDisrespectful RemarksDenied
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 46 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