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. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Schomber v. Schomber

This case concerns a postjudgment application for a change of custody which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. The remaining issues for the court were the award and apportionment of counsel and expert fees. The court reviewed the affidavits of legal services and net worth statements from both the plaintiff and defendant, noting the defendant's superior earning capacity. It also addressed the fees for the Law Guardian and a forensic expert, whose qualifications were challenged by the plaintiff. The court affirmed the expert's role and fees, stating that licensure is not a prerequisite for court-appointed experts in this context. Ultimately, the court ordered the apportionment of legal, Law Guardian, and forensic expert fees between the parties, with the defendant responsible for 80% and the plaintiff for 20% of the expert and Law Guardian fees, based on their respective financial circumstances.

custody disputechild supportlegal feesexpert witness feesLaw Guardian feespostjudgment applicationmatrimonial lawfee apportionmentfinancial disclosureSuffolk Academy of Law
References
4
Case No. 2021-02-0655
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2023

Otey, Eddie v. ASPLUNDH TREEE EXPERT COMPANY

Eddie Otey, an employee of Asplundh Tree Expert Company, sought dental care and attorney's fees after sustaining injuries, including a lost tooth, on January 18, 2021. Despite a settlement agreement providing for future dental care, Asplundh failed to provide a panel of oral surgeons. The Court found Mr. Otey was entitled to the requested benefits, ruling that Asplundh must provide the panel and pay reasonable attorney's fees to Michael Large. The Court adjusted the attorney's fees to $1,760.00, including legal staff time, and also taxed the filing fee to Asplundh.

Workers' CompensationDental CareAttorney's FeesPanel of PhysiciansMedical BenefitsSettlement AgreementOral SurgeonsEmployee RightsEmployer ObligationsTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. W2009-02273-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2010

Ella G. Alexander Wade v. Felice A. Vabnick, M.D.

Ella G. Alexander Wade appealed the trial court's award of discretionary costs to Felice A. Vabnick, M.D., after Wade voluntarily dismissed her medical malpractice claim. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed the trial court's decision, specifically concerning expert fees and court reporter fees under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 54.04. The appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding $688.08 for court reporter fees incurred for pretrial hearings and $27,362.49 for expert fees related to trial preparation, noting that Rule 54.04 limits expert fees to deposition or trial testimony. However, the court affirmed the award of $3,851.15 for court reporter fees for depositions. Consequently, the court modified the total discretionary fee award to $3,851.15.

discretionary costsexpert witness feescourt reporter feesRule 54.04voluntary nonsuitappellate reviewabuse of discretionmedical malpractice claimlitigation expensesprevailing party
References
11
Case No. 2018-03-0237
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Travis, Fred v. Carter Express, Inc.

Fred Travis, II, an employee, suffered a right shoulder injury while working for Carter Express, Inc. Carter denied his claim and failed to timely initiate benefits, arguing an Indiana forum-selection clause applied and that Travis's injury description was inconsistent. The case was remanded from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to reconsider attorney's fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1)(b). The Court found Carter's failure to initiate benefits was incorrect, erroneous, and inconsistent with the law, as the forum-selection clause was void and Travis did not elect Indiana remedies. Considering the 'extremely limited circumstances' framework from Thompson v. Comcast Corp., the Court concluded that Carter's delay without an expert opinion to rebut medical evidence justified the award of attorney's fees. The Court granted Mr. Travis’s request for attorney’s fees totaling $28,244.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesExpedited HearingRemandJurisdictionForum-Selection ClauseMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. E2003-02124-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2004

Jon E. Shell v. D. Scott King

Jon and Rebecca Shell, as plaintiffs, sued D. Scott King for the dissolution of their limited liability company (The Big Red Barn, LLC) and breach of fiduciary duties. A Special Master found King negligent and in breach, recommending a judgment that included some attorney and expert witness fees. The Trial Court confirmed this report. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed King's liability for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. However, the appellate court modified the judgment to hold King responsible for all expert witness fees, a larger portion of attorney fees related to expert assistance, and all court costs, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine appellate attorney fees.

Limited Liability Company (LLC)Breach of Fiduciary DutyNegligenceDissolution of CompanySpecial Master ReportAttorney FeesExpert Witness FeesCosts on AppealRespondeat SuperiorDelegation of Duties
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. United Uniform Co.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of their motion for reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees under T.R.C.P. 37.03. This motion stemmed from the defendant's objections to requests for admissions concerning medical causation, which necessitated the plaintiff taking depositions of two doctors for trial proof. The trial court initially denied worker's compensation benefits for one alleged accident and awarded medical expenses for another, but denied the motion for expenses and fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for expenses, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide a complete record for review and that expert medical opinion is not discoverable under T.R.C.P. 36. Furthermore, the appellate court granted the defendant's request for damages, deeming the plaintiff's appeal frivolous under T.C.A. § 27-1-122.

Discovery SanctionsRule 37.03Rule 36Appellate ProcedureWorker's Compensation BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyEvidentiary StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardFrivolous AppealsCost Reimbursement
References
3
Case No. M2000-02902-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2003

Rebecca McMurry v. Metro Government of Nashville

Rebecca McMurry, an employee, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County after a slip and fall at work resulted in a knee injury. She sought damages under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for lost earning capacity, pain, and suffering. The trial court awarded $24,000, attributing fault to Metro but finding the injury an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, and also awarded $2,858.30 in discretionary costs, excluding a $900 expert trial preparation fee. McMurry appealed, arguing for increased damages and the inclusion of the expert fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of exacerbation and confirming that expert witness preparation fees are not recoverable discretionary costs.

Governmental Tort LiabilitySlip and FallKnee InjuryPre-existing ConditionExacerbation of InjuryDamages AwardAppellate ReviewExpert Witness FeesDiscretionary CostsCausation
References
33
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,167 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