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

Melo v. Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Evelyn Melo, an employee of Jewish Board of Family and Children’s Services, Inc. (JBFCS), filed a tort action after sustaining personal injuries from an attack, rape, and robbery at her workplace. JBFCS moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law provides the exclusive remedy for such injuries. Melo cross-moved, arguing that her injuries were not "accidental workplace injuries" and therefore fell outside the purview of workers' compensation. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law, specifically §§ 10, 11, and 21, and relevant case law regarding "accidental injury" and its exceptions. The court determined that Melo was indeed an employee, the incident occurred during her employment, and she failed to demonstrate that the Workers' Compensation Law did not preempt her tort action. The court granted JBFCS's motion to dismiss and denied Melo's cross-motion, also awarding costs to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryWorkplace AssaultRape and RobberyMotion to DismissCPLRAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentEmployer Liability
References
19
Case No. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06588 [210 AD3d 1496]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2022

Green v. Evergreen Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Bradford Green initiated an action to recover damages for injuries sustained from a fall off an A-frame ladder while working on a car wash overhead door. The defendants, Evergreen Family Limited Partnership, moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's activity was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the sole proximate cause defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted plaintiff's motion on the 14th affirmative defense. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether the work constituted routine maintenance or a repair, and the adequacy of the safety device provided, thus precluding a sole proximate cause defense as a matter of law.

Ladder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety EquipmentAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyMaintenance vs. RepairPersonal Injury
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. 01-21-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Jaime Ramirez Guardia and Andrea Martinez- Flores v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Eighteen months after relinquishing their parental rights to two children, appellants Jaime R. Ramirez and Andrea Martinez-Flores filed a petition for bill of review to restore their parental rights, alleging their relinquishments were induced by fraud. The trial court dismissed the bill of review based on separate motions filed by appellees, the children’s adoptive mother A.C. and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. On appeal, appellants contended the trial court erred by dismissing the bill of review because appellees did not establish lack of jurisdiction or entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the petition for bill of review was untimely under Section 161.211(a) of the Family Code. Additionally, the court found that appellants lacked standing to challenge the conservatorship and adoption orders.

Parental Rights TerminationBill of ReviewFraudulent InducementStatutory InterpretationDue Process ChallengeAppellate JurisdictionChild AdoptionFamily LawCollateral AttackTimeliness
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daniel AA.

This case is an appeal concerning a Family Court order that terminated parental rights due to permanent neglect. The respondents' children, James and Daniel, were placed in petitioner's custody after a finding of neglect. Despite the petitioner's diligent efforts to provide a service plan, including mental health, substance abuse counseling, and parenting classes, the respondents consistently failed to cooperate, resisted change, and denied the existence of problematic behaviors. The court concluded that the petitioner satisfied its statutory obligations under Social Services Law § 384-b, and the mother was capable of planning for the children's future. Given the respondents' unstable lifestyle, characterized by violence and marital separations, the Family Court's decision to terminate parental rights was affirmed, prioritizing the children's needs for consistency, affection, and a stable environment.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsFamily Court AppealChild WelfareSocial Services LawParental ResponsibilityDomestic ViolenceSubstance Abuse CounselingMental Health Counseling
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paul C. v. Tracy C.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a Family Court order granting custody of his two children to the mother. The father contended that the court erred by not ordering psychological or social evaluations, that the Law Guardian provided inadequate representation by not requesting such evaluations or calling witnesses, and that the custody decision for the mother was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding that the decision regarding evaluations was within the court's discretion, the Law Guardian actively represented the children's best interests, and the Family Court's custody determination was supported by the evidence and accorded great weight.

Child CustodyParental RightsVisitation RightsPsychological EvaluationLaw Guardian RepresentationBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewFamily Court DiscretionCustody DisputeEvidence Weight
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 18,117 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