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. 01-10-01080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2013

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Falcon Express International (Falcon) sued DHL Express (USA), Inc. (DHL) for rescission of an assignment and assumption agreement and punitive damages, alleging fraud by non-disclosure. Falcon claimed DHL failed to disclose its plans to exit the domestic package delivery market before Falcon assumed a third-party's debt and reseller agreement with DHL. DHL countersued for breach of contract. A jury awarded Falcon $1.7 million in rescission damages and $3.2 million in punitive damages, while awarding $0 to DHL on its counterclaim. DHL appealed, arguing Falcon's fraud claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and that the $0 damages for its counterclaim were factually insufficient. The Court of Appeals agreed with DHL, reversing the trial court's judgment regarding Falcon's fraud claim and punitive damages, dismissing that claim, and remanding DHL's counterclaim for breach of contract for further proceedings.

Fraudulent InducementNon-disclosureBreach of ContractPreemptionAirline Deregulation ActFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActAir CarrierMotor CarrierReseller AgreementPunitive Damages
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

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

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 03-12-00144-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2013

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

This case involves an appeal by FM Express Food Mart, Inc. and its shareholder Fouad Hanna Mekdessi against a summary judgment affirming a sales tax deficiency assessment by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. FM Express challenged the Comptroller's audit methodology, which used estimated sales figures due to the company's inadequate records, and also contested the constitutionality of Texas Tax Code provisions requiring prepayment of taxes for judicial review. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Comptroller was authorized to estimate taxes when proper records were not kept and that FM Express failed to demonstrate the audit was unreasonable. The court declined to address the constitutional challenge, finding no actual injury to FM Express regarding the prepayment requirement.

Tax ProtestSales Tax AuditEstimated AssessmentInadequate RecordsConstitutional ChallengePrepayment RequirementsJudicial ReviewOpen Courts DoctrineSummary JudgmentTexas Tax Code
References
17
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

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

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. 2020-08-0214
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2022

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The employee, Courtney Lee, reported neck and back injuries from handling a box during her employment at Federal Express Corporation. While the employer accepted the claim and provided initial medical treatment, the authorized physician ultimately released her at maximum medical improvement, stating no further treatment was necessary. However, the trial court found the injury compensable and ordered ongoing medical treatment with the treating physician. Following the employer's refusal to authorize additional treatment, the trial court granted the employee's motion, prompting the employer's appeal. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, emphasizing the prior judgment awarding future medical benefits and the employee's continued symptoms despite the physician's reliance on outdated diagnostic information.

Medical BenefitsFuture Medical TreatmentCompensable InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementObjective FindingsTrial Court OrderAppeals Board DecisionPhysician's OpinionBurden of ProofDiagnostic Testing
References
5
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. 2015-07-0004
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

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

Lovell Burton, the Employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking further medical benefits from Express Employment Services, the Employer, following a left hand injury sustained on July 16, 2014, while using a nail gun. The Workers' Compensation Judge conducted a hearing on March 25, 2015. Mr. Burton represented himself and contended his ongoing pain and numbness were directly related to the injury, despite missing a follow-up appointment. Express argued Mr. Burton failed to comply with treatment recommendations and that the authorized treating physician, Dr. Ellis, opined the current complaints were not primarily related to the original injury. The Court found that Mr. Burton's claim for additional medical benefits was denied because he failed to rebut Dr. Ellis's opinion that the current symptoms were not 51% or more related to the compensable injury.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingLeft Hand InjuryPuncture WoundCausationTreating Physician OpinionBurden of ProofMedical EvidenceNerve Conduction Study
References
3
Case No. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

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

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,418 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