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. 10-06-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2008

Navasota Resources, L.P. v. First Source Texas, Inc., First Source Gas, LP, Gastar Exploration Texas, LLC F/K/A Bossier Basin, LLC, First Texas Gas, LP, First Source Bossier LLC, Gastar Exploration, LTD., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Exploration LP & Chesapeake Operating. Inc

Navasota Resources, L.P. initiated a lawsuit to enforce a preferential right clause within a joint operating agreement with First Source Texas, Inc. and related entities concerning oil and gas interests. The trial court granted summary judgment for First Source and Chesapeake Energy Corp., denying Navasota's motion. On appeal, the court examined whether the preferential right was triggered by a multi-asset 'package deal' and if Navasota was obligated to accept all additional terms. The appellate court determined that the preferential right was indeed invoked, and Navasota was not required to agree to unrelated conditions like stock purchases or entry into an Area of Mutual Interest. Consequently, the court found a binding contract was formed, the preferential right provision was not an unreasonable restraint on alienation, and rejected defenses of mistake or unconscionability. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, with judgment rendered in favor of Navasota for breach of contract and specific performance, and the case was remanded for determination of attorney's fees and revenues.

Oil and GasPreferential RightJoint Operating AgreementSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceRestraint on AlienationPackage DealAppellate ReviewContractual Option
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bobby Duncan v. First Texas Homes and First Texas Homes, Inc.

Bobby Duncan, an employee of First Texas Homes, sustained injuries after falling from stairs on a construction site. He alleged negligence, citing unsafe working conditions and failure to inspect the premises, particularly due to insufficient clearance on the stair platform that violated OSHA and company safety standards. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of First Texas. On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding First Texas's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, whether the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and if First Texas's negligence was the proximate cause of Duncan's injuries. The court emphasized that an employee's awareness of a defect does not necessarily eliminate the employer's duty in a nonsubscriber case.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityEmployer NegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerOccupational SafetyConstruction Site InjuryHazardous ConditionForeseeabilityProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
61
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02766 [160 AD3d 921]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Clarke v. First Student, Inc.

Ibia M. Clarke, an employee of First Student Management, LLC (FSM), sustained personal injuries due to a defective condition at FSM's premises. She subsequently filed a negligence action against First Student, Inc., the premises owner. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of FSM, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, FSM. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was granted.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyAlter Ego DoctrineEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewCorporate Structure
References
9
Case No. 02-12-00318-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Will Williams v. America First Lloyds Insurance

Will Williams appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to America First Lloyds Insurance regarding his workers' compensation claim. Williams challenged a 0% impairment rating for a workplace injury, contending it should be 19%. The trial court granted summary judgment based on Williams's failure to respond to requests for admissions, which were subsequently deemed admitted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no violation of due process rights, as Williams demonstrated a callous disregard for responding to the requests and provided no good cause for his inaction or evidence of fraud.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentImpairment RatingDeemed AdmissionsDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTexas LawCivil ProcedureHernia Injury
References
26
Case No. CA 10-02172
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

NEW YORK SCHOOLS INSURANCE RECIP, MTR. OF

The petitioner, New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition for a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent Patricia Armitage sought arbitration after the petitioner denied her claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first-party benefits is a matter for arbitration under Insurance Law § 5106 [b]. The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the offset for workers' compensation benefits exceeding the monthly limit is not arbitrable and that the denial of a stay of arbitration denied its right to a loss-transfer claim from proposed additional respondents.

No-fault insuranceArbitrationWorkers' compensation offsetFirst-party benefitsAppellate reviewInsurance LawStay of arbitrationLoss-transfer claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New Hampshire Insurance & Utilities Mutual Insurance

Carl Cunniff was injured at work and received workers' compensation benefits from his employer's carrier, referred to as Respondent. Cunniff later settled a personal injury lawsuit against a third party. Erroneously believing Respondent had a lien on this settlement, Cunniff paid a portion of his settlement to Respondent. Respondent then initiated compulsory arbitration against Petitioner, the lessee's insurer, seeking to recover the benefits it had paid and to reimburse Cunniff for the mistaken payment. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of Respondent, awarding it $11,924.51 from Petitioner. Petitioner sought to vacate this arbitration award, but Special Term dismissed the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the court affirmed the order and judgment, finding that Respondent had standing to compel arbitration as it was subrogated to Cunniff's right to recover first-party benefits and that the arbitrators' decision was rational, noting that Respondent was obligated to repay Cunniff for the mistaken payment.

Arbitration AwardVacate ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSubrogationLoss Transfer ArbitrationPersonal Injury SettlementMistaken PaymentStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 01-23-00619-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2024

In Re First Transit, Inc. v. the State of Texas

First Transit, Inc. sought mandamus relief concerning the trial court’s order denying its motion for medical examinations of Stephon Gladney by First Transit’s experts. Gladney had filed a personal injury lawsuit against First Transit and Gwendolyn Neveu for injuries sustained in a collision. The appellate court conditionally granted the petition in part, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the examination by First Transit’s neurology expert, Dr. Steven Lovitt, as proper neurocognitive testing had not been performed and in-person examination was necessary. However, the court denied the petition regarding the orthopedic examination by Dr. R. Alexander Mohr due to insufficient evidence of necessity.

MandamusDiscoveryMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealGood CauseNeurological InjuryOrthopedic InjuryExpert Witness
References
13
Case No. CA 10-02491
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2012

LUCAS, RONALD, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming two arbitration awards. The first award found that the respondents violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by disregarding a binding past practice where the most senior caulker supervisor was offered the right of first refusal for an acting-time position. The second award directed the respondents to pay Donald Mackowiak $54,282.71 and Ronald French $1,094.99 in back pay and lost overtime for their failure to provide this right. The respondents argued on appeal that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2), were against public policy, speculative, irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's power. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the awards did not violate the Civil Service Law, as temporary appointments under § 64(2) do not require emergency situations. The court also found no public policy violation, citing an employer's ability to limit its discretion by agreement or established past practice, especially when safety is not a concern. The damages were deemed non-speculative, and the awards were found to be rational and within the arbitrator's authority, supported by evidence of a past practice.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic Policy ChallengeWaiver of DiscretionPast Practice DoctrineActing-Time PositionRight of First RefusalDamages for Lost WagesAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Mickie PP.

A designated felony act petition was filed against a 13-year-old respondent, alleging sodomy in the first degree at St. Cabrini Home in Ulster County. The Family Court found the respondent committed the acts, adjudicated him a juvenile delinquent, and ordered a three-year restrictive placement with the Division for Youth due to escalating behavior and threats. The respondent appealed the decision, arguing insufficient evidence and improper restrictive placement. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's findings, concluding that the victim's corroborated testimony provided sufficient evidence and the restrictive placement was a proper exercise of discretion.

Juvenile DelinquencyDesignated Felony ActSodomyRestrictive PlacementDivision for YouthFact-Finding HearingDispositional HearingPrima Facie CaseForcible CompulsionSexual Offense
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03554
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2019

Matter of Zavion O. (Donna O.)

This consolidated appeal addresses the legality of protective arrest warrants issued by Family Court for two infants, Zavion O. and Serenity R.L., who are chronic absconders from foster care. The infants exhibit significant behavioral and mental health challenges, leading Family Court to issue warrants under Family Court Act § 153 to ensure their health and safety. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these orders, holding that FCA § 153 does not authorize protective arrests for non-respondent children who are not required as witnesses in a proceeding. The court emphasized Family Court's limited jurisdiction, stating that the 'parens patriae' doctrine cannot create statutory authority. While acknowledging the compelling need for effective tools to manage serial absconders, the court concluded that any such authorization must originate from the legislature.

Child WelfareFamily Court JurisdictionArrest Warrant LegalityProtective CustodyAbsconding ChildrenStatutory InterpretationParens Patriae DoctrineAppellate ReviewFoster CareJuvenile Delinquency
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 6,590 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