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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

Jacqueline Head contracted with Affordable Inspections for a home inspection. She alleged that an unsupervised apprentice performed the inspection, failing to disclose significant water damage and structural defects. Head sued Affordable and John Fox (the inspector) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, unconscionability, and breach of express warranty, as well as for breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Affordable and Fox, applying the professional services exemption to DTPA claims and limiting liability for contract and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, and upheld the limitation of liability for breach of contract and negligence. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Head's DTPA claim for breach of express warranty, finding a fact issue regarding the promise of a licensed inspector performing the inspection. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to Affordable and Fox was also reversed and remanded.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionBreach of ContractNegligenceLimitation of LiabilityExpress WarrantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Estate InspectionHome Inspector
References
50
Case No. 14-09-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Jose A. Perez and Nancy C. Perez v. Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company

In this insurance coverage dispute, the owners of a vehicle damaged in a collision appeal the trial court’s judgment that the insurer has no duty to defend the insured or pay damages arising from the accident. On October 4, 2007, Maria Nambo, an unlicensed driver, was involved in an accident. Her father, Mario Nambo, had an automobile insurance policy with Old American County Fire Insurance Company. Old American rescinded the policy after learning Maria resided with Mario and was not disclosed. Mario had warranted that he and Virginia were the only drivers and residents over fifteen, and later, deemed admissions showed he intentionally failed to disclose Maria's residence and unlicensed status to deceive Old American. The trial court ruled in favor of Old American, declaring the policy properly rescinded and Old American had no duty to defend or pay damages to the Nambos or Jose Perez. The trial court also dismissed the Perezes' claims with prejudice for failure to appear. The Perezes appealed, challenging the denial of their summary judgment motion, the notice of trial setting, the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court's failure to provide a licensed translator for Mario Nambo. The appellate court overruled all issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Automobile InsuranceInsurance CoveragePolicy RescissionMaterial MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentTrial NoticeLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceInterpreter RightsDue Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Laura I.M. v. Hillside Children's Center

The case concerns infant plaintiffs who were sexually abused by Sergey Reznikov, a patient at Hillside Children’s Center, during unaccompanied weekend home visits. Reznikov had a documented history of pedophilia, for which he was admitted to Hillside. Plaintiffs sued Hillside, asserting liability for negligent failure to exercise professional judgment in allowing these home visits without properly assessing supervision capabilities. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The affirmation was based on Hillside's failure to discuss supervision with Reznikov's mother and a social worker's omission to inform a psychiatrist of critical information regarding Reznikov's contact with the victims.

negligenceprofessional judgmentchild sexual abusetreatment facility liabilitypedophiliasupervision failurehome visit policysummary judgmentappellate affirmancephysician-patient privilege
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. ADJ7730252
Regular
Jul 22, 2015

MARIA OLVERA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered sanctions imposed by a WCJ against applicant's attorney and representative for failing to disclose a cumulative trauma claim and proceeding to trial without a legal basis. The Board rescinded one sanction for failure to disclose, finding no legal mandate for immediate disclosure, and clarified which parties were sanctioned for proceeding to trial without basis, reducing the penalties. The Board affirmed the award of costs to the defendant for defending against these actions. One Commissioner dissented, believing the conduct was not sanctionable given the evidence presented by applicant's representatives.

WCABSanctionsCostsLabor Code 5813Rule 10561Hearing RepresentativeCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryDue ProcessBill of Particulars
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1993

Caban v. New York City Transit Authority

Plaintiffs Ralph Davis and Caban were injured during their employment with the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA). They later sued NYCTA, alleging an independent tort for impairment of their ability to pursue claims against a third-party tortfeasor. This impairment was caused by NYCTA's failure to timely disclose a board of inquiry report that identified a potential culprit for the accident. The lower court dismissed their complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for not commencing the action within the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred due to their non-compliance with notice of claim requirements.

Statute of LimitationsNotice of ClaimDismissal of ComplaintFailure to DisclosePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewTimelinessTort ClaimProfessional Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robbins v. Capozzi

Susan Robbins appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of LaDonna Capozzi, Adieta & Poston, and Susan Bratton. Robbins had sued them for common law fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations, and fraud in a real estate transaction, alleging a failure to disclose parking difficulties at a condominium she purchased. The trial court found no genuine issue of material fact on Robbins's claims and awarded attorney's fees to Capozzi. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Robbins failed to prove falsity in representations or a duty to disclose by the defendants, and upheld the attorney's fees award.

Real Estate FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary Judgment AppealCommon Law FraudDuty to DiscloseSeller's DisclosureCondominium SaleAttorney's FeesTexas Appellate LawAffirmed Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1997

Sam v. Town of Rotterdam

Plaintiff Sien Sam, a brake technician, was injured on February 2, 1993, when a police vehicle owned by the defendant experienced brake failure at Salisbury Chevrolet, Inc. Sam's complaint alleged derivative liability of the defendant as the vehicle owner and negligence for failing to disclose the vehicle's dangerous braking system. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that objections to the technical form of a supporting deposition must be preserved at the trial level. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to present evidence identifying the cause of the brake failure or demonstrating the defendant's knowledge of the defect.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationEvidentiary RulesAffidavit RequirementVehicle NegligenceBrake FailureOwner LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. 2014-05-0015
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

Sachs, William v. Johnson Controls

William Sachs filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking workers' compensation benefits for a neck and shoulder injury allegedly suffered during his employment with Johnson Controls. Johnson Controls initially paid temporary disability and medical benefits but later denied the claim on causation grounds. Due to Mr. Sachs' repeated failure to comply with court orders, including not responding to discovery and failing to disclose expert witnesses, Johnson Controls filed a Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted the motion, dismissing Mr. Sachs' claim without prejudice, citing Rule 41.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissFailure to ProsecuteDiscovery SanctionsExpert Witness DisclosureTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41.02Pro Se LitigantEmployer DefenseCausation DisputeWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,931 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