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. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2023

Plan B. Holdings, LLC CIPE Real Estate Solutions, LLC And Cheryl Cox v. RSLLP, F/K/A Reed & Scardino LLP

RSLLP, a law firm, sued Plan B Holdings, CIPE Real Estate Solutions, and their owner Cheryl Cox for unpaid attorney's fees. The District Court found in favor of the law firm, awarding actual damages, attorney's fees, and sanctions against Cox for discovery abuse. On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered challenges regarding attorney's fees against LLCs, Cox's individual liability under various theories (breach of contract, sworn account, quantum meruit, and piercing the corporate veil), and the discovery sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the sanctions and Cox's personal liability for actual damages based on piercing the corporate veil due to her use of corporate entities to perpetrate actual fraud for personal benefit. However, it reversed the award of attorney's fees against the LLCs and, consequently, against Cox, as the old statutory language for Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code did not permit attorney's fees against LLCs.

Attorney's FeesCorporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoLimited Liability CompanyContract BreachQuantum MeruitSworn AccountDiscovery SanctionsActual FraudTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. 15-24-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2024

Cecile Erwin Young, in Her Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc.; And Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc. v. Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction and the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction issued by the 353rd Judicial District of Travis County. The appellants, including Cecile Erwin Young (Executive Commissioner of HHSC), Molina Healthcare of Texas, Inc., and Aetna Better Health of Texas, Inc., are challenging the lower court's decision. The appellees (Cook Children's Health Plan, Texas Children's Health Plan, Superior Health Plan, Inc., and Wellpoint Insurance Company) had sought to enjoin the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) from proceeding with STAR & CHIP and STAR Kids managed care procurements. The core legal arguments revolve around whether HHSC's procurement processes violated Texas law, thereby rendering the intended contract awards unlawful ultra vires acts, and whether the appellees' claims are barred by sovereign immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellants contend that the district court abused its discretion by granting the injunction and denying the plea.

Appellate CourtTemporary InjunctionPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsProcurement DisputeManaged Care ContractsMedicaidCHIPTexas Health and Human Services Commission
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Wilson

Dorothy S. Wilson, as executrix of the estate of Leonard R. Wilson, filed a petition for discovery against Lee Ford concerning the proceeds of Leonard R. Wilson's retirement plan, which named Ford as the beneficiary. Mr. Wilson died in 1985, having a vested benefit in the Corporate Profit Sharing Plan and Trust Agreement for Cobblestone Enterprises, Inc. The court considered the 1984 amendments to ERISA requiring a qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA) for surviving spouses. Despite the plan's amendment occurring after Mr. Wilson's death, a transition rule mandated the QPSA amendments be treated as in effect at the time of death. The court, citing no New York authority, concluded that given the Cobblestone plan was a 'defined benefit plan' and under the ERISA transition rule, Dorothy S. Wilson, as the surviving spouse, was entitled to the entire $8,643.38 proceeds of the retirement plan.

ERISARetirement PlanQualified Preretirement Survivor AnnuityQPSADefined Benefit PlanTransition RuleSurviving SpouseBeneficiary DisputeEstateProbate
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humana Health Plan, Inc. v. Nguyen

Humana Health Plan, Inc. initiated this action against Patrick Nguyen, David Abney, and Crady, Jewett & McCulley, LLP, under ERISA, seeking to enforce plan terms and obtain equitable relief. Abney and Crady were later dismissed, leaving Nguyen as the sole defendant. The central dispute revolved around Humana's claim for reimbursement of $274,607.84 in medical expenses paid by the Plan for Nguyen, following his receipt of a $255,000 third-party settlement from an automobile accident. The court granted Humana's motion for summary judgment, denying Nguyen's cross-motion, concluding that Humana functioned as a Plan fiduciary with standing and that the Plan's terms unambiguously established an equitable lien on the settlement funds in Humana's favor.

ERISASummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyReimbursementSubrogationEquitable LienPlan AdministratorPlan ManagerSettlement FundsAutomobile Accident
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. 11-05-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Alice Marie Belew D/B/A Belew Real Estate v. James A. Rector

This case involves an appeal concerning an oral employment contract dispute over real estate commissions. Appellant Alice Marie Belew, a real estate broker operating Belew Real Estate, challenged a trial court judgment in favor of Appellee James A. Rector. Rector claimed entitlement to commissions from lot sales in Desert Willow Estates based on an oral agreement. The trial court found Rector was due additional commissions and attorney's fees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed Belew's arguments regarding lack of consideration, sufficiency of evidence for commission receipt, and presentment of attorney's fees claim, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.

Real Estate LawOral ContractEmployment DisputeCommissionsAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewContractual ConsiderationLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Law
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 6,688 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