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

Callisburg Independent School District v. Favors

This is an appeal concerning an award of workers' compensation benefits to Wilfred Favors, whose wife, Erma Favors, died in an automobile collision while commuting to a summer school program where she taught. The School District, as the appellant, challenged the jury's verdict in favor of Favors, arguing that Erma was not within the course and scope of her employment when the accident occurred. The appellate court examined the appellant's 'no evidence' points, which contended that the trial court erred in not granting an instructed verdict and in submitting Special Issue No. 1 to the jury. The court ultimately found that Erma Favors' commute did not fall under the 'course of employment' based on established legal precedents, as there was no evidence of employer-furnished transportation, expense reimbursement, or a special mission. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the School District.

Workers' Compensation AppealCourse of EmploymentCommuting AccidentNo Evidence PointJudgment N.O.V.Instructed VerdictTravel Expense ReimbursementSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer LiabilityFatal Injury
References
10
Case No. 13-14-00667-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2015

in the Estate of Mildred Ozella Favor Pursley A.K.A. Mildred F. Pursley

Rocky Pursley appealed the probate court's summary judgment which imposed a constructive trust on Mildred F. Pursley's estate. Rocky argued that Mildred's 1975 joint will with her deceased husband was not a contractual will, or if it was, Mildred's later 2007 will and 2010 codicil did not breach its terms. The Court of Appeals reviewed the interpretation of the 1975 will, affirming that it created a life estate for the surviving spouse and a class gift to all children upon the survivor's death, thereby making it a contractual will. The court found that Mildred's subsequent will and codicil, which favored only two of the three children, circumvented the terms of the 1975 contractual will. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to impose a constructive trust to enforce the 1975 will's provisions.

Estate LawContractual WillJoint WillLife EstateClass GiftSummary JudgmentProbate LawWill ConstructionTestamentary IntentAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 05-14-01510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2015

Trent Steven Griffin v. American Zurich Insurance Company

Trent S. Griffin appeals a trial court's summary judgment in favor of American Zurich Insurance Company regarding a workers' compensation claim. Griffin suffered a neck and shoulder injury, arguing the insurer waived its right to contest compensability due to late notice. He contends the trial court erred by admitting inadmissible evidence from the agency's review, failing to provide notice for summary judgment hearings, and not drawing inferences favorable to him as the non-movant. Griffin seeks to reverse the trial court's judgment or remand for a new trial, emphasizing violations of Texas Labor and Government Codes.

Summary Judgment AppealCervical RadiculopathyShoulder SprainHerniated DiscAdmissibility of EvidenceTrial De NovoInsurance DisputeMedical ImprovementImpairment RatingDue Process Violation
References
54
Case No. No. 6
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Danny Donohue v. Andrew M. Cuomo

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding the vesting of post-retirement health insurance benefits under New York law. The court declined to adopt "Yard-Man-type inferences" which favor vested retiree benefits, finding them inconsistent with New York's established contract interpretation principles. The decision reaffirmed that contractual rights and obligations generally do not survive beyond the termination of a collective bargaining agreement unless expressly stated. Consequently, the court held that the 2007-2011 CBA provisions did not create a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions. The court also clarified that its prior ruling in Kolbe v Tibbetts did not implicitly adopt such inferences.

Collective bargaining agreementRetiree health benefitsVesting rightsContract interpretationNew York lawYard-Man inferencesM&G Polymers v. TackettCNH Industrial v. ReeseCivil Service LawJudicial review
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Boone v. Rigaud

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found the claimant filed a timely claim for benefits. The claimant, a barmaid for Rest Seekers Inn, injured her back in 1982 but initially did not file for benefits, believing she was not entitled unless she lost time from work. After losing time in 1984, she submitted a C-2 form, and her chiropractor filed a C-4 report containing details that could be inferred as a claim for compensation. The employer invoked Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, but the Board ruled in the claimant's favor. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that while the C-2 form was insufficient, the C-4 report, providing notice of injury and facts from which a claim for compensation could be reasonably inferred, satisfied the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimC-2 FormC-4 ReportNotice of InjuryClaim FilingStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewBack InjuryBarmaid
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forsythe v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

Plaintiff Earl Forsythe, a pro se litigant, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII. Forsythe, a security guard employed by Tristar Patrol Services, claimed that DCAS and its employees discriminated against him based on his race by causing his transfer from desirable posts at DCAS-managed facilities to less favorable ones, disrupting his childcare schedule. DCAS moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Forsythe's direct employer and that Forsythe failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or an inference of discriminatory motive. The court determined that a factual issue existed regarding DCAS's "joint employer" liability if a transfer was racially motivated. However, the court found no admissible evidence to suggest that Forsythe's transfers were racially motivated, thus failing the "inference of discrimination" element of his prima facie case. Consequently, DCAS's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Forsythe's Title VII claim was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentJoint Employer DoctrineAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBurden-ShiftingPretext
References
40
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05464 [220 AD3d 614]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Children's Magical Garden, Inc. v. Marom

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted an adverse inference charge against the defendant for spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court found the defendant grossly negligent in spoliation. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, determined that the imposed adverse inference charge was inappropriate because it required rather than permitted the jury to draw an adverse inference. Furthermore, due to conflicting testimony, the issues of spoliation and the warrant for an adverse inference should have been presented to the jury first. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by deleting the specific adverse inference charge, remanding the matter for a new charge, and otherwise affirming the order.

Spoliation of evidenceAdverse inference chargeGross negligenceAppellate reviewEvidentiary sanctionsCivil procedureDiscoveryJury instructionsRemandNew York law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Resource Savings Ass'n v. Neary

Resource Savings Association appealed a summary judgment granted to Michael L. Neary and John H. Lang, II. The core dispute involved a promissory note from Dimension-Lang Georgia Partners, guaranteed by Neary and Lang, which defaulted. Resource foreclosed on Georgia property but dismissed a Georgia confirmation proceeding, then sued Neary and Lang in Texas. Neary and Lang argued Georgia law, which requires foreclosure confirmation for deficiency suits, should apply, thus barring Resource's claim. Resource contended Texas law should govern as per the guaranty's choice-of-law clause, arguing the Texas suit was against guarantors, not the property. The court determined Texas law applied, reversed the summary judgment in favor of Neary and Lang, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Choice of LawConflicts of LawGuarantyPromissory NoteForeclosureDeficiency JudgmentGeorgia LawTexas LawSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barton v. Whataburger, Inc.

This negligence case involves Rose Barton's appeal against Whataburger, Inc., following the aggravated robbery and murder of her son, Christopher Dean, a Whataburger employee. Barton alleged Whataburger was negligent in hiring manager Gregory Love, who conspired in the robbery, and in failing to provide a safe workplace or prevent the crime. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Whataburger, concluding that the criminal acts leading to Dean's death were not foreseeable as a matter of law. The court examined Love's prior convictions (cocaine dealing, child support nonpayment) and past criminal incidents at the restaurant, deeming them insufficient to establish the foreseeability of such a violent crime. It also addressed the application of premises liability foreseeability standards to employer duties.

NegligenceWrongful DeathEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityForeseeabilityAggravated RobberyMurderSummary JudgmentTexas LawCriminal Acts
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 3,563 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