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

J.B. Custom Design & Building v. Clawson

The appeal stems from a Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) lawsuit filed by L.W. Clawson and Linda Clawson against J.B. Custom Design and Building for damages related to faulty foundation repair services. The jury found that J.B. Custom Design engaged in unworkmanlike conduct, misrepresentations, and knowingly committed DTPA violations, awarding actual and mental anguish damages. The trial court initially awarded discretionary treble damages and set aside the mental anguish award. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court erred in determining discretionary damages without a jury issue and in setting aside the jury's findings on mental anguish. The judgment was reformed, reducing discretionary damages by $14,000 and reinstating $8,000 for mental anguish, resulting in a total judgment of $18,000 in damages plus $9,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPAfoundation repairunworkmanlike mannermisrepresentationknowing conductmental anguish damagestreble damagesjury findingsjudgment notwithstanding verdict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

La Villa Independent School District v. Gomez Garza Design, Inc.

La Villa Independent School District appealed a judgment in favor of Gomez Garza Design, Inc. for breach of contract. The case stemmed from a 1995 agreement for architectural services, where a dispute arose when La Villa hired another firm for a new elementary school project after Garza Design had commenced preliminary work under the existing contract. The trial court's judgment, based on a jury finding, awarded Garza Design $52,850.00. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions regarding the existence of a valid contract, the superintendent's authority to bind the school district, and the calculation of damages. The court also determined that the contract did not violate the Professional Services Procurement Act.

Breach of contractArchitectural servicesSchool districtSuperintendent authorityContract validityProfessional Services Procurement ActDamagesJury findingsJudgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)Estoppel
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1992

Medical Designs, Inc. v. Medical Technology, Inc.

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Medical Designs, Inc. (MDI) against Medical Technology, Inc. (MTI) and Gary Bledsoe, asserting infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 4,407,276 and U.S. Patent Des. 269,379. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing patent invalidity and unenforceability. The court found that claims 1-7 of the ’276 patent were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by prior art, and claims 1-8 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, the entire ’276 patent was deemed unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by MDI's patent attorney for intentionally omitting material prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office. While the ’379 design patent was found valid and enforceable, MDI failed to prove infringement. Consequently, the court awarded attorneys' fees and damages to MTI and Bledsoe against MDI and Floyd Hutson.

Patent infringementUtility patentDesign patentPatent invalidityPatent unenforceabilityPrior artObviousnessAnticipationInequitable conductAttorney's fees
References
20
Case No. 03-97-00434-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1998

Nicholas Van Bavel v. Oasis Design, Inc. David Knapp Constantine Ciocan And C & C Electronics, Ltd.

Nicholas van Bavel sued Oasis Design, Inc., David Knapp, Constantine Ciocan, and C&C Electronics, Ltd. for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury found in van Bavel's favor, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment on van Bavel's individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, finding legally insufficient evidence for a fiduciary relationship, detrimental reliance for fraud, and no breach of contract based on a "business sense" clause. However, the court reversed and remanded the derivative action, finding legally sufficient evidence that Knapp and Ciocan breached their fiduciary duty to Oasis Design but factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's damage award, requiring a new trial on that specific claim.

Corporate LawShareholder DisputeFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractFraudJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewDerivative ActionDamagesFactually Insufficient Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martegani v. Cirrus Design Corp.

Micaela Martegani, individually and as natural guardian of her minor child, commenced a wrongful death action against Cirrus Design Corporation and East End Aviation following her husband's death in a 2006 plane crash. The parties reached a settlement, and Martegani sought court approval, including attorney's fees and the establishment of a trust for the minor child's share. The court approved the settlement in principle, but significantly reduced the requested attorney's fees by 30% due to the absence of contemporaneous time records. Additionally, the court denied the recovery of "case expenses" and a $5,000 reserve due to insufficient documentation. The final order authorized Martegani to settle the claims, with specific allocations for attorney's fees, the minor child's trust, and Martegani's personal compensation.

Infant SettlementWrongful DeathPlane CrashAttorney FeesContingency FeeCourt ApprovalMinor Child TrustSettlement AllocationCase ExpensesDocumentation Requirements
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2012

Rozenfeld v. Department of Design & Construction

Plaintiff Paul Rozenfeld sued his former employer, the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), and several DDC employees, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, and age under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, § 1983, SHRL, and CHRL. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff cross-moved. The court found that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived most of his claims through a settlement agreement. Even if the waiver were invalid, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate adverse employment action or circumstances inferring discrimination. The court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' motion, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentWaiver AgreementADEATitle VIISection 1983
References
70
Case No. 2018-06-1969
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2019

Kent, Robert v. Delatorre Art Design, Inc.

The claimant, Robert Kent, an artisan, sustained a left shoulder injury while working at the Nashville Zoo. He sought workers' compensation benefits from Delatorre Art Design, Inc., which hired him, alleging he was an employee. Delatorre contended Kent was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to benefits. The trial court sided with Delatorre, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Board after considering statutory factors for determining employment status. The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding that Kent was unlikely to establish an employer-employee relationship at trial, and thus affirmed the denial of benefits.

Independent contractoremployer-employee relationshipworkers' compensation benefitsartisan injuryoccupational injurytemporary workstatutory factorsright to controlmethod of paymentNashville Zoo
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. General Design and Development, Inc.

Jerry Johnson was severely injured in November 1991 when a drill bound, causing him to fall from a stepladder at a construction site. He and his spouse sued the general contractor, General Design and Development, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), among other claims. General subsequently initiated a third-party action against subcontractors Omni Plumbing Company and Thomas P. Pleat Construction, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs were granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) by the Supreme Court. The defendants appealed, contending the injuries were not elevation-related. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the stepladder was inadequate and the accident constituted an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus establishing a prima facie violation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryContractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityIndemnification
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 894 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