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. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. NO. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns an appeal from a declaratory summary judgment regarding a liquidated-damages provision. Appellee Tracy Strandhagen, a physician, sought to declare a $500,000 liquidated-damages clause in an operating agreement with her former medical practice group's advisory board (appellants) an unenforceable penalty. The trial court denied the appellants' plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for Strandhagen. On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that Strandhagen failed to conclusively prove the provision was an unreasonable forecast of just compensation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, while affirming that the claim was ripe for review.

Contract LawLiquidated DamagesSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory JudgmentContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperating AgreementUnenforceable PenaltyRipeness DoctrineAppellate Review
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an appellee's motion for rehearing, which was overruled. The core of the decision distinguishes the current case from Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Alvarez. In Westchester, the motion for summary judgment failed to state any grounds, a defect of form that was waived because it was not excepted to prior to judgment. In the present case, the appellee did state specific grounds for summary judgment (no duty to replace the door due to no covenant to repair and gratuitous promise), but did not state the exculpatory clause as a ground. The court found that appellants did not waive their right to complain on appeal because appellee's motion, by stating specific grounds and omitting others, was calculated to mislead appellants, preventing them from excepting to the omitted ground. Therefore, the exculpatory clause could not be urged for the first time on appeal to prevent reversal.

RehearingSummary JudgmentWaiverExculpatory ClauseProcedural DefectTexas LawAppellate ReviewGrounds for MotionMisleading MotionDuty to Repair
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Plaintiff SI Communications Inc. sued Defendant Nielsen Media Research alleging breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their contract for television ratings estimates. SI claimed Nielsen's African-American demographic ratings had unacceptably high sampling errors, leading to substantial lost advertising revenue. Nielsen sought summary judgment, asserting that Illinois law, which governed the contract, did not support an independent cause of action for breach of implied good faith, and that a clear limitation of liability clause in the agreement precluded SI's claims. The court found in favor of Nielsen, ruling that the contract explicitly addressed sampling errors and that the exculpatory clause was enforceable and not unconscionable. Consequently, Defendant's motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff's claim was granted, and its counterclaims for unpaid services were also granted.

Breach of ContractImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnconscionabilitySampling ErrorTelevision RatingsAdvertising RevenueIllinois LawLimitation of Liability
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments granted in favor of the appellees. Derr Construction Company, a subcontractor, sued the City of Houston, Blount, Inc. (general contractor), and Gil-bane/Mayan Joint Venture (construction administrator) after its crane was damaged in an accident at a construction site. Derr alleged negligence and breach of contract, with its insurer, U.S. Fire, asserting subrogation rights. The appellees moved for summary judgment, citing contractual defenses including a release of liability and waiver of subrogation rights in the subcontract between Derr and Blount. The trial court granted summary judgments which Derr appealed. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the subcontract provision acted as both an exculpatory clause and an indemnity clause, effectively releasing the appellees from liability, and that the City and Gilbane were intended third-party beneficiaries of this contract.

Summary JudgmentContract InterpretationExculpatory ClauseIndemnity ClauseThird-Party BeneficiaryConstruction AccidentProperty DamageSubrogation RightsAppellate ReviewContractual Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case addresses whether a corporation is bound by an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement ratified by its predecessor partnership. The petitioner, Local 169 of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, initiated arbitration against the respondent, Williams Sportswear Co., Inc., for defaulting on payments to employee funds. The corporation, formed by the same partners who ran the predecessor partnership, continued the same business in the same location and sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was not a party to the agreement. While the Special Term denied the stay, the Appellate Division reversed, absolving the corporation of the obligation. The higher court, however, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the corporation acts as an 'alter ego' of the original promoters and is thus bound by the collective bargaining agreement, emphasizing that a change in corporate form does not negate pre-existing contractual obligations when the underlying business remains unchanged. Therefore, arbitration was deemed enforceable.

Arbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate LiabilityAlter Ego DoctrineSuccessor EmployerStay of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionCorporate FormationContractual ObligationsUnion Rights
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,063 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