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

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Sematech, Inc.

This case involves an injured employee's third-party liability cause of action and an insurance carrier's derivative claim of subrogation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company appealed from a summary judgment in favor of appellees Sem-atech, Inc. and Burle Industries, Inc., while appellant Charlie Franks appealed the dismissal of his plea in intervention due to the statute of limitations. Franks was injured in 1991, and Industrial Indemnity, his employer's workers' compensation carrier, filed a subrogation lawsuit in 1993. Franks intervened in 1994, asserting negligence claims against the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Franks's plea, ruling it was time-barred and could not relate back to Industrial Indemnity's original petition, which only asserted its subrogation claim, not Franks's underlying third-party liability claim. Consequently, the appellate court also affirmed the summary judgment for appellees, finding Industrial Indemnity's derivative subrogation claim moot since Franks's recovery rights could not be established.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionDerivative ClaimsTexas LawInsurance Carrier

References

Case No. No. 16565

Regular Panel Decision

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Franks

Robert Lee Franks sued Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained from a caboose derailment in 1961. A jury found the railroad negligent, exonerated Franks, and awarded $116,250 in damages. The railroad appealed on multiple grounds, including objections to medical testimony, the refusal to submit certain issues regarding employee status and rule violations, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court systematically addressed and overruled all of the railroad's points, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict in favor of Franks.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjuryRailroad AccidentCaboose DerailmentNegligencePost-Concussion SyndromeDamages AwardedAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony AdmissibilityExcessive Damages Claim

References

Case No. 03-94-00339-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim

References

Case No. Docket Entry No. 1

Regular Panel Decision

May 26, 2015

Dodds v. Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Keith Dodds, an at-will employee, was terminated by Terracon Consultants for his refusal to work a weekend shift, citing a U.S. Department of Transportation regulation regarding driving hours. Dodds initiated a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Terracon under Texas' Sabine Pilot doctrine, asserting he was fired solely for declining to perform an illegal act. Terracon sought summary judgment, contending that no illegal act was required and that Dodds had an alternative statutory remedy under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. The court denied Terracon's motion, concluding that a genuine factual dispute exists regarding the nature of the employer's instruction and finding the STAA does not preclude the Sabine Pilot claim. The case is now set for a pretrial scheduling conference.

Wrongful DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSabine Pilot DoctrineDOT RegulationsHours of ServiceSurface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)Summary JudgmentFactual DisputeStatutory RemedyPreemption

References

Case No. 01-02-01105-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 18, 2004

Marvin Frank Motor Co. v. Harris County

Marvin Frank Motor Company appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Harris County $19,001.22 in damages. Harris County, acting as a subrogee and self-insured workers' compensation carrier, sued Marvin Frank Motor Company to recover benefits paid to its injured employee, Mark Amato, following a vehicle accident. The appellant raised six points of error concerning the admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the damages award. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed the trial court's decisions, including the admission of affidavits and testimony regarding medical expenditures and workers' compensation payments. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirmed the judgment in favor of Harris County.

Subrogation LawAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ChallengesJury Charge ErrorLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Civil PracticeCollateral Source DoctrineMedical Care CostsLost Wage Damages

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Frank Y.

The case involves an appeal by Frank Z. against a Family Court order from Chemung County, dated January 27, 2003, which found his children neglected. The initial neglect proceedings in 2001 were based on the mother's physical abuse and Frank Z.'s failure to protect his children. After conditions including an order of protection against the mother, Frank Z. violated these terms by permitting the mother to have contact with the children and by inflicting corporal punishment. Following further hearings, the Family Court sustained the neglect petition and placed the children in petitioner's custody for one year. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the neglect finding, including Frank Z.'s willful violation of the protection order and corroborated statements from the children regarding corporal punishment.

Child NeglectFamily CourtOrder of ProtectionCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAppellate ReviewCorroboration of Child StatementsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine

References

Case No. 03-06-00208-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 11, 2008

Shelly Frank, as Beneficiary of Eric Frank v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Texas Workers' Compensation Commission rules regarding notice for appellate deadlines. Justice Waldrop contends that Rule 102.5(a) merely dictates the sending of communications to both claimants and their lawyers, but does not define the start of appeal deadlines. He states that the Texas Labor Code section 410.202 and Rule 143.3 clearly establish that the 15-day appeal period commences upon the claimant's receipt of the hearing officer's decision. The dissent concludes that the appellant, Shelly Frank, failed to meet the statutory deadline as she personally received the decision, and therefore, the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Workers' Compensation AppealsNotice DeadlinesStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Rules InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial DeferenceClaimant RepresentationAppellate DeadlinesJurisdictional RequirementsLegal Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 7,034 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Sematech, Inc.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionDerivative ClaimsTexas LawInsurance Carrier

References

Case No. No. 16565

Regular Panel Decision

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Franks

References

Case No. 03-94-00339-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim

References

Case No. Docket Entry No. 1

Regular Panel Decision

May 26, 2015

Dodds v. Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Wrongful DischargeAt-Will EmploymentSabine Pilot DoctrineDOT RegulationsHours of ServiceSurface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA)Summary JudgmentFactual DisputeStatutory RemedyPreemption

References

Case No. 01-02-01105-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 18, 2004

Marvin Frank Motor Co. v. Harris County

Subrogation LawAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ChallengesJury Charge ErrorLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Civil PracticeCollateral Source DoctrineMedical Care CostsLost Wage Damages

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Frank Y.

Child NeglectFamily CourtOrder of ProtectionCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAppellate ReviewCorroboration of Child StatementsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

References

Case No. 03-06-00208-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 11, 2008

Shelly Frank, as Beneficiary of Eric Frank v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

References

Showing 1-10 of 7,034 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.