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. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. State

This opinion, authored by Chief Justice Harbison, concurs that disability for a scheduled injury is based on loss of use rather than earning capacity. However, it dissents on the grounds that the workers' compensation claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employee sustained a wrist fracture, received medical treatment, and wore a cast for weeks, yet waited twenty years to file a claim for permanent disability. The Chief Justice argues that the employee knew or should have known of a work-related injury and disability, even without precise information, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations should apply from the date of injury or last medical payment. The opinion references Taylor v. Clayton Mobile Homes, Inc. and Jones v. Home Indemnity Co. to support the argument against extending the statute of limitations for such a long period, especially when the injury was apparent from the beginning.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsScheduled InjuryPermanent DisabilityWrist FractureLatent InjuryKnowledge of InjuryMedical ExpensesTimeliness of ClaimJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Millson v. Manfredo

This paternity proceeding challenges the constitutionality of Family Court Act § 517(a), which sets a five-year Statute of Limitations for mothers to commence such proceedings, arguing it violates equal protection. The respondent moved to dismiss because the petition was filed over five years after the child's birth. The court examined whether the statute impermissibly differentiates between male and female petitioners and between legitimate and illegitimate children. It concluded that the differing limitation periods for mothers and fathers are unjustified, as their rights are now identical. Furthermore, the court found that the five-year statute is not substantially related to preventing stale or fraudulent claims, especially when considering the longer periods for public welfare officials and advancements in blood testing. Consequently, the court determined the petitioner's claim, filed approximately 6.5 years post-birth, to be timely, and denied the respondent's motion to dismiss.

Paternity ProceedingsStatute of LimitationsEqual Protection ClauseConstitutional LawFamily LawGender DiscriminationIllegitimate Children RightsChild SupportJudicial ReviewFamily Court Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. ADJ9 088743
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

LEO ESTRELLA vs. MILWAUKEE BREWERS, SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS, ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leo Estrella's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that his cumulative injury claim against the Milwaukee Brewers and San Francisco Giants was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Board found that applicant knew or should have known of his right to file a claim more than one year prior to filing, precluding application of the five-year "new and further disability" statute. Applicant's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of knowledge was rejected, as the evidence indicated he was aware of the industrial causation of his injuries by 2009. One commissioner dissented, arguing the date of injury should be 2013 and that defendants failed to prove applicant's knowledge of his rights or the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityTollingDate of InjuryIndustrial CausationProfessional Baseball Player
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. ADJ9758295
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

JOHN BAILEY vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board affirmed that the employer's voluntary provision of medical treatment and indemnity benefits tolled the one-year statute of limitations under Labor Code § 5405 to the five-year period under § 5410. The defendant's notice disputing permanent disability benefits did not clearly deny all liability for the claim, thus failing to restart the one-year limitations period. The issue of new and further disability was premature and not addressed by the Board in this decision.

Statute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code § 5405Labor Code § 5410TollingNew and Further DisabilityWaiverEstoppelIndustrial Disability Leave (IDL)
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ1882653 (VNO 0549022)
Regular
Jan 28, 2011

CESAR LOPEZ, SR. vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous award finding industrial injury. The Board determined that while the defendant initially provided some medical treatment, thus triggering the five-year statute of limitations under Labor Code section 5410, this period was tolled. Once the defendant issued a denial notice on February 24, 2006, the one-year statute of limitations commenced, and the applicant's subsequent claim, filed more than one year after the denial, was consequently barred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5405Industrial InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardRescindedTollingDenial Letter
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,320 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