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. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 01-22-00505-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2024

Xavier Johnson v. the State of Texas

Xavier Johnson appealed his convictions for retaliation and assault on a public servant, stemming from an incident where he assaulted his literacy teacher, Nicole Truelove, at the Ferguson Prison Unit. Truelove alleged Johnson physically assaulted her and made threats after she began writing a disciplinary report against him for violating classroom rules. The jury acquitted Johnson of aggravated sexual assault but convicted him of retaliation and assault on a public servant. On appeal, Johnson challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions and the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding Truelove's financial condition and an audiotape. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary rulings.

Criminal LawRetaliationAssault on Public ServantSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsConfrontation ClauseRule 403 AnalysisWitness CredibilityPrison Inmate
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1996

In Re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.

Stuart L. Kreisler, the debtor's former chief executive officer, moved to have his claim against Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc. (RLW) estimated for voting purposes in RLW's plan of reorganization. Kreisler argued most of his claim, arising from postpetition termination, was an administrative expense, with a smaller unsecured claim. The debtor, RLW, denied any claim. Chief Judge Tina L. Brozman conducted an evidentiary hearing to estimate the claim due to time constraints before the confirmation hearing. The court determined that Kreisler's severance claim would likely be allowed as a postpetition quantum meruit administrative expense, estimating his prepetition unsecured claim related to unpaid bonus at $279,000, and the severance portion of his prepetition claim at zero. The ruling also addressed disputes concerning EBIT calculation for bonus determination and the allocation of the bonus between pre- and post-petition periods.

BankruptcyClaim EstimationSeverance PayAdministrative ExpenseQuantum MeruitEmployment AgreementDebtor ReorganizationPostpetition ClaimPrepetition ClaimBonus Calculation
References
13
Case No. ADJ8451841
Regular
Oct 31, 2014

AVIS ADAMS vs. LABCORP, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was based on medical reports and deposition excerpts not present in the evidentiary record, violating WCAB Rule 10842(b). The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder and hand based on substantial medical evidence, including the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion. The Judge's report also noted the defendant failed to provide any medical evidence supporting alternative causes for the injury. Therefore, the defendant's petition, lacking proper evidentiary support and violating procedural rules, was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10842(b)evidentiary recordAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)John G. LaneM.D.industrial injuryleft shoulderleft handcumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waldrep v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Appellant Alvis Kent Waldrep, Jr. sought workers’ compensation benefits for a football injury sustained while attending Texas Christian University (TCU). The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission initially awarded him benefits, but Appellee Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA) appealed to the district court. A jury found Waldrep was not a TCU employee, leading the district court to rule that Waldrep take nothing. Waldrep then appealed the district court's judgment, arguing he was an employee as a matter of law and challenging various evidentiary rulings. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding against Waldrep's employee status and no abuse of discretion in the evidentiary matters.

Workers' CompensationCollege AthleticsEmployee StatusTexas LawContract of HireAmateurismNCAA RulesFinancial AidScholarshipSpinal Cord Injury
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ilardi v. Bechtel Power Corp.

Michael J. Ilardi sued his former employer, Bechtel Power Corporation, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after being terminated in a reduction-in-force at age 58. Ilardi alleged the RIF targeted older employees and sought to overturn a directed verdict granted to Bechtel, arguing for a new trial due to perceived evidentiary errors by his previous counsel and improper court rulings. The court denied Ilardi's motion for a new trial, finding no grounds under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a) or 60(b), as the evidentiary failures were attributed to counsel's carelessness, and no truly newly discovered evidence was presented. The court also declined Bechtel's request for sanctions against Ilardi's new attorney, deeming the motion not entirely without substance.

Age DiscriminationADEADirected VerdictNew Trial MotionRule 59(a) FRCPRule 60(b) FRCPEvidentiary RulingsAttorney NegligenceReduction-in-ForcePrima Facie Case
References
17
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 11,158 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