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

Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding an accidental death insurance policy obtained by National Convenience Stores, Inc. (NCS) on the lives of its employees, Ramon Tamez and Cheryl McCarty. The families of Tamez and McCarty (appellants) sued NCS, Lloyd’s (insurer), Ronald Seaborg, and International Accident Facilities, Inc. (IAF) after NCS received and later returned policy benefits. Appellants claimed NCS lacked an insurable interest and was not a proper beneficiary under the Texas Insurance Code, seeking the proceeds through various claims including constructive trust, breach of contract, and conspiracy. The appellate court found that appellants had standing to challenge NCS's insurable interest and determined that NCS, as an employer, lacked an insurable interest in the lives of its general employees and was not a proper beneficiary under the Texas Insurance Code for this type of policy. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of appellees on claims related to insurable interest, proper beneficiary, conversion, breach of contract, conspiracy, and constructive trust. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment concerning claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code, as appellants were considered third-party claimants without standing for those specific claims.

Insurance LawInsurable InterestSummary JudgmentTexas Insurance CodeAccidental Death PolicyGroup InsuranceConstructive TrustBreach of ContractConspiracyDuty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2002

Communications Workers v. Ector County Hospital District

Plaintiff Urbano Herrera, a carpenter at Ector County Hospital District, faced disciplinary action, including suspension and reduced pay, for wearing a "Union Yes" button. He and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) sued the Hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights regarding free speech. The District Court, presided over by Judge Furgeson, granted the plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the Hospital's dress code policy unconstitutionally restricted Herrera's protected speech. The court found insufficient evidence to justify the policy based on Herrera's public contact or disruption of hospital functions. As a result, the Hospital was ordered to pay monetary damages to Herrera, expunge negative records from his employee file, and permanently enjoin a portion of the dress code to allow "Integrated Services" employees to wear pro-union buttons, also awarding attorney's fees and litigation costs to the plaintiffs.

Union YesFreedom of SpeechFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPublic EmployerDress Code PolicyAdverse Employment ActionRetaliationPublic ConcernPickering Balancing Test
References
51
Case No. No. 74 Civ. 5585.
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1975

Harris v. Stroudsburg Fur Dressing Corp.

This case addresses a motion by labor union officials (petitioners) to confirm an arbitration award against Stroudsburg Fur Dressing Corp. (respondent) in the New York State Supreme Court. The employer unilaterally removed the proceedings to the United States District Court. The District Court considered its subject matter jurisdiction, especially in light of the Varley v. Tarrytown Associates precedent which suggested a lack of federal jurisdiction without explicit agreement for judicial confirmation of arbitration awards. Recognizing the state court's unquestioned jurisdiction and the federal policy favoring arbitration, the District Court decided to remand the action back to the New York State Supreme Court. The remand order was issued without costs and stayed for ten days.

Arbitration AwardLabor UnionLMRAFederal JurisdictionRemand OrderSubject Matter JurisdictionCollective BargainingJudicial ConfirmationNew York LawInterstate Commerce
References
5
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. CA-3-6982-G, CA-3-7949-G
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1980

Vuyanich v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas

This class action lawsuit alleges race and sex discrimination by Republic National Bank of Dallas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court established liability for compensation discrimination against black employees (exempt and nonexempt) from 1973. It also found liability for initial placement and promotion discrimination against black and female nonexempt employees (all years) and black exempt employees (from 1973). For hiring, a prima facie case was found for black nonexempt applicants (1969-1973) and female exempt applicants (through 1974). Additionally, liability was established for certain discriminatory maternity leave policies affecting females prior to 1971. Claims regarding female exempt compensation, female exempt initial placement/promotion, termination practices, marriage policies, and dress codes were denied.

employment discriminationTitle VIIclass actionrace discriminationsex discriminationwage discriminationcompensation discriminationinitial placement discriminationpromotion discriminationhiring discrimination
References
143
Case No. D-l-DC-06-900135
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Wiesman

The State appealed the district court's decision to quash indictments against Carol Wiesman, Donna Iverson, and Timothy Carney. The appellees were indicted for securing by deception workers' compensation insurance policies valued at $200,000 or more, violating Texas Penal Code § 32.46. The district court quashed the indictments, ruling that under the in pari materia doctrine, the prosecution should have been brought under Texas Labor Code § 418.002, which specifically addresses fraud in obtaining workers' compensation insurance and carries lesser penalties. The appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the two statutes are not in pari materia because they have distinct elements of proof and serve different legislative objectives, thus not being in irreconcilable conflict. The Penal Code requires the execution of a document through deception, while the Labor Code focuses on making false statements with intent to obtain coverage or avoid premiums, irrespective of whether a policy is issued.

Workers' Compensation FraudInsurance FraudStatutory InterpretationIn Pari Materia DoctrineIndictment QuashingCriminal ProcedureAppellate LawTexas Penal CodeTexas Labor CodeDeceptive Practices
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Corp. of Hannover v. Polk

Judy Polk and Marcia Moore sued Insurance Corporation of Hannover for breach of an equine-livestock mortality insurance policy, bad faith, and Texas Insurance Code violations after their horse, Smart Score, died from colitis. Hannover denied the $40,000 claim, arguing the death was not covered under the policy's 30-day extension clause because the colitis was not directly caused by prior surgery for a knee fracture. The trial court found in favor of Polk and Moore, awarding them actual and extra-contractual damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's findings that Hannover breached the contract and violated the Insurance Code by failing to reasonably investigate and settle the claim. However, the appellate court modified the amount of additional damages, reducing the total award to three times the actual damages, as per the Texas Insurance Code.

Insurance Policy BreachEquine Mortality InsuranceBad Faith ClaimTexas Insurance Code ViolationsUnfair Settlement PracticesJury Trial DenialAbuse of Discretion StandardCausation of IllnessVeterinary Medical OpinionAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1959

Anzio Frocks, Inc. v. Joint Board Dress & Waistmakers' Union of Greater New York

Anzio Frocks, Inc. sought an order to enjoin arbitration proceedings initiated by the Joint Board Dress and Waistmakers’ Union of Greater New York and the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union, citing alleged violations of a Collective Agreement. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction over the unions because service on their attorneys was deemed ineffective. Furthermore, Anzio failed to demonstrate any basis for irreparable damage, and the court noted a history of delaying tactics by Anzio. Consequently, the court denied Anzio's petition to enjoin the arbitration.

ArbitrationInjunctionJurisdictionService of ProcessCollective AgreementIrreparable DamageLabor UnionStay OrderDelaying TacticsFederal Court
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,750 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