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

Scarbrough v. Murrow Transfer Co.

This case consolidates two wrongful death lawsuits filed by Mrs. Alberta Scarbrough and Claud Nolan against Murrow Transfer Company and Billy Ray Burge, stemming from a fatal motor vehicle accident on September 17, 1966. The accident, which resulted in the deaths of Randolph Scarbrough and Jimmy Ray Nolan, occurred when Burge, driving a tractor-trailer for Murrow Transfer, negligently crossed into the opposing lane, causing a collision with a United States Job Corps bus. The court found Burge and Murrow Transfer liable for negligence. Additionally, a third-party action for indemnity or contribution by the defendants against the United States of America was dismissed, with the court ruling that the Federal Employees Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy for claims against the U.S. related to the Job Corps members' deaths. The plaintiffs were each awarded $28,000 in damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentWrongful DeathNegligenceRespondeat SuperiorThird-Party ActionIndemnityContributionFederal Employees Compensation ActJob CorpsDamages
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of G.R.M.

This appeal addresses a jurisdictional dispute concerning the modification of a parent-child relationship order. Appellant Sam J.M. challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the 393rd District Court of Denton County, arguing that the 158th District Court retained exclusive jurisdiction over the original decree of divorce. Appellee Leticia H. A. contended that the transfer of the case to the 393rd District Court for docket equalization was permissible under the Texas Government Code. The court analyzed the apparent conflict between the exclusive transfer provisions of the Texas Family Code and the docket equalization provisions of the Texas Government Code. Applying statutory construction principles, the court found that the Government Code's section on docket equalization, enacted later and reflecting a clear legislative intent to balance judicial burdens, prevails over the Family Code's transfer restrictions in this specific context. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the 393rd District Court had properly acquired continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

Subject Matter JurisdictionDocket EqualizationParent-Child RelationshipStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodeExclusive JurisdictionIntra-county TransferAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06183 [120 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

McDonald v. Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.

The plaintiff, Andrew McDonald, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that the defendant established a prima facie defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found that the defendant and the plaintiff's employer, Winter Bros. Waste Systems, Inc., operate as a single integrated entity, thereby extending workers' compensation protection to the defendant as an alter ego of the employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this defense, leading to the proper dismissal of the complaint.

Alter Ego DoctrineWorkers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityIntegrated EntityAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTriable Issue of FactRespondent
References
8
Case No. 05-23-01126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2024

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC and Culberson Midstream LLC v. Energy Transfer LP

Culberson Midstream Equity, LLC, Moontower Resources Gathering, LLC, and Culberson Midstream LLC (collectively Culberson) sought permission to appeal an interlocutory order denying their motion for summary judgment on Energy Transfer LP's fraud claims, which stemmed from a dispute over a gas gathering contract. The Fifth District Court of Appeals at Dallas denied the petition. The court found that Culberson failed to establish that the interlocutory order involved a controlling question of law with a substantial ground for difference of opinion, a requirement for permissive appeals. The court concluded that existing case law adequately addresses issues like disclaimers of reliance, justifiable reliance, and red flags in fraud claims, thus providing sufficient guidance without requiring a permissive appeal.

Permissive AppealInterlocutory OrderSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsGas Gathering ContractJustifiable RelianceDisclaimer of RelianceControlling Question of LawSubstantial Ground for Difference of OpinionTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hollis v. Bo-Mac Contractors, Inc.

The case involves Kirk Hollis's personal injury claim against Bo-Mac Contractors, Inc. The defendant filed a Motion to Transfer Venue from the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas to the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas. District Judge Kent denied the motion, highlighting the plaintiff's choice of forum and the greater convenience of the Galveston venue for several key witnesses, including medical professionals located in Houston. The court also considered the location of counsel and relevant records, as well as the potential for delay if the case were transferred. The decision reaffirmed that the party seeking transfer bears the burden of proof, which the defendant failed to satisfy.

Venue TransferPersonal InjurySouthern District of TexasGalveston DivisionWitness ConvenienceForum Non ConveniensJudicial DiscretionMotion PracticeDistrict Court OrderCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Jesus v. National RR Passenger Corp.

This action, brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), involved a defendant's motion to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, was injured in New Jersey, received medical treatment there, and all witnesses reside in New Jersey. Despite the plaintiff's opposition, which cited the FELA's broad venue, forum choice, and docket conditions, the court found the plaintiff's choice of a non-resident forum diminished. The court concluded that New Jersey was a more convenient forum for all parties and witnesses, and that the proximity of the districts and relative docket conditions did not outweigh the lack of connection to New York. Consequently, the court granted the transfer motion, moving the case to the District of New Jersey.

Federal Employers' Liability ActFELAVenue TransferForum Non Conveniens28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Choice of ForumConvenience of PartiesConvenience of WitnessesInterest of JusticeInterstate Transfer
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S & L BIRCHWOOD, LLC v. LFC Capital, Inc.

Plaintiffs, S & L Birchwood, LLC and S & L Birchwood Realty, LLC, filed a breach of contract action against LFC Capital, Inc., following a dispute over a medical equipment lease. LFC alleged default, and S&L initiated a declaratory judgment action in New York state court, which was subsequently removed to federal court. LFC moved to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, citing a forum-selection clause in their agreement. The court analyzed the enforceability of the clause, determining it to be mandatory due to language of 'irrevocable submission' to Illinois jurisdiction, despite not explicitly using 'must' or 'may'. Consequently, the court denied LFC's motion to dismiss but granted the request for transfer, concluding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of New York and that transfer to the Northern District of Illinois was warranted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).

Forum selection clauseBreach of contractDiversity jurisdictionTransfer of venueDismissal motionIllinois contract lawNew York jurisdictionMedical equipment leasingMandatory clause interpretationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American National Insurance Co. v. International Business Machines Corp.

Justice Duncan, in this concurring and dissenting opinion, addresses the complex conflict of laws issue arising from transferred cases between Texas Courts of Appeals, particularly concerning fraud claims. While concurring with the majority's affirmation of summary judgment against ANICO's negligence claims, he dissents from the reversal of summary judgment on ANICO's fraud claims. Duncan argues that the law of the transferring court (First Court of Appeals, Houston) should govern, rather than the receiving court's (this court's) interpretation. He highlights the unworkable and unfair implications of applying the receiving court's law, which can lead to inconsistent outcomes, bind lower courts via the 'law of the case' doctrine, and undermine the purpose of temporary transfers for docket equalization. Drawing parallels to federal multidistrict litigation transfers, he advocates for a rule that requires transferee courts to apply the law of the transferring court to ensure fairness, predictability, and efficiency within the intrastate judicial system.

Conflict of LawsInterstate ConflictsIntrastate ConflictsJudicial Transfer SystemAppellate JurisdictionFraud ClaimsNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentLaw of the Case DoctrineJudicial Efficiency
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lauritano v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The claimant suffered a work-related heart attack in 1992, received benefits, and the case was closed in 1997. After another heart attack and surgery in 1999, the claim was reopened in 2001. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found it was not a stale claim, but the Board reversed, transferring liability to the Special Fund. The Special Fund argued that employer payments for lost time in 1999-2000 constituted advance payments of compensation, precluding transfer. However, the court affirmed the Board's determination that these payments, made pursuant to a general sick leave plan, did not qualify as advance payments of compensation under § 25-a, thus supporting the transfer of liability to the Special Fund.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aStale Claim DoctrineAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave BenefitsLiability TransferHeart Attack InjuryReopened CaseAppellate Review of Board DecisionSubstantial Evidence Standard
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,126 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