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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01170
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2023

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Maktumma Teshabaeva and Jian Hua Deng, former home health aids, initiated a wage-and-hour class action against Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., alleging underpayment for 24-hour shifts and overtime. Defendants sought to compel arbitration based on a 2015 memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the plaintiffs' union, which established a mandatory alternative dispute resolution procedure. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to compel, ruling the MOA did not apply to plaintiffs who terminated employment before its effective date. After a federal court confirmed an arbitration interim award, defendants moved to renew their arbitration motion, which the Supreme Court denied, also granting plaintiffs legal fees for opposing the motion. Separately, the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion to strike defendants' answer due to persistent discovery non-compliance. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed both Supreme Court orders, finding the federal court's confirmation did not constitute new facts for renewal, and reiterated that lower federal court decisions are not binding precedent in state courts. The court also upheld the sanctions against defendants for frivolous conduct and their willful failure to comply with discovery demands.

Wage-and-hour disputeLabor Law claimsBreach of contractClass actionArbitrationAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Motion to renewDiscovery sanctionsFrivolous conductRes judicata
References
15
Case No. No. 10-12-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2013

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

Appellants Leisel Moseley, Brian Dunn, and Janel Dunn appealed a summary judgment favoring Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and related entities. They claimed wrongful termination, alleging Happy Hill Farm operates as a treatment or mental-health facility under the Texas Health and Safety Code, and contested the applicability of statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Happy Hill Farm is neither a treatment nor a mental-health facility, but a basic child care facility with a school. Furthermore, the court found Happy Hill Farm exempt from former Chapter 242 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it operates under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a recognized state agency.

Summary judgmentWrongful terminationTexas Health and Safety CodeMental health facilityTreatment facilityBoarding schoolState agency exemptionEmployment at willRetaliatory dischargeMedical misconduct
References
17
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

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

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Vernon Forsting contracted with Weekley Homes for a house, including an arbitration clause. His daughter, Patricia Von Bargen, though a nonparty to the contract, was deeply involved in the home's construction and subsequent repair issues, and later sued Weekley for personal injuries (asthma) allegedly caused by negligent repairs. The trial court compelled arbitration for Forsting and the Forsting Family Trust but refused for Von Bargen. The Texas Supreme Court, applying direct benefits estoppel, ruled that Von Bargen, having deliberately sought and obtained substantial benefits from the contract, could not avoid its arbitration clause, and thus her personal injury claim must also proceed to arbitration. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementNonsignatoriesDirect Benefits EstoppelFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas Supreme CourtMandamus ReliefPersonal Injury ClaimContract LawTort LawEquitable Estoppel
References
56
Case No. 2-07-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an appeal by Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella (Appellants) against Joan Cutting (Appellee). Appellants challenged the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment and deny their motion for a new trial, primarily arguing a lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that evidence of selective refusal of service established constructive notice. The court also upheld Mark Rotella's joint and several liability, citing his personal guarantee in the construction contract and his liability for tortious acts as an agent. Appellants' claim regarding a lack of fraudulent intent was overruled due to insufficient briefing.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConstructive NoticeService of ProcessJoint and Several LiabilityCorporate Agent LiabilityFraudulent IntentAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case addresses the enforceability of a contractual indemnity clause under Texas fair notice requirements. American Home Shield (American Home) sought indemnity from Turn-Key Pool & Spa (Turn-Key) following a personal injury suit stemming from a spa heater explosion serviced by Turn-Key. The trial court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment and granted Turn-Key's, ruling the indemnity provision failed both the conspicuousness requirement and the express negligence doctrine. On appeal, American Home contended the provision satisfied fair notice or, alternatively, Turn-Key had actual notice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the indemnity provision was not conspicuous and American Home failed to establish actual knowledge, thus rendering the clause unenforceable.

Contractual IndemnityFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge ExceptionSummary JudgmentTexas LawIndemnity ClauseService Agreement DisputeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2-07-226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2008

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

Appellants Mark Rotella, individually, and Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc., d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes, appealed a trial court's default judgment in favor of Dozier Cabinet Works, Inc. Appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, arguing they failed to set up a meritorious defense. The court found that mere allegations of beliefs or legal conclusions were insufficient for a meritorious defense. Appellants also argued that the trial court erred in holding Rotella vicariously liable under the Texas Property Code, claiming no contract existed in the record. However, the default judgment stated that the trial court heard evidence and found Rotella personally liable under Chapter 162 of the Texas Property Code. The appellants failed to provide a reporter's record to show error in the trial court's judgment. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseVicarious LiabilityTexas Property CodeConstruction Trust FundsAppellate ReviewReporter's Record BurdenCivil Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. 14-02-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

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

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute between homebuilder Lennar Corporation and its CGL insurance carriers over damages caused by defective stucco (EIFS) applied to homes. The court analyzed whether negligently defective construction constitutes an "occurrence" and distinguished between covered costs (repairing actual water damage) and non-covered costs (preventative EIFS replacement, overhead). While affirming summary judgment for several insurers due to unmet self-insured retentions based on individual homes as separate occurrences, the court reversed for American Dynasty and Markel, citing unresolved factual issues regarding "known loss" and policy conditions. Lennar's extra-contractual claims against American Dynasty were ultimately denied for lack of proven damages or statutory violations.

Insurance Policy InterpretationConstruction DefectsCommercial Liability InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimsStucco DefectsDuty to IndemnifySelf-Insured RetentionsKnown Loss PrincipleSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Law
References
96
Showing 1-10 of 3,404 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