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

London v. London

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by a former wife against her former husband, alleging unlawful interception and recording of her telephone conversations with their eight-year-old daughter. The defendant used an automatic answering machine attached to his home phone, where the daughter resided, to record these calls during 1973-1974, a period of their legal separation before their divorce. The plaintiff sought damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, which prohibit willful wire communication interception and provide a civil cause of action. The Court, citing Simpson v. Simpson, dismissed the complaint, ruling that Congress did not intend these statutes to apply to a family member's interception of calls within the family home, regardless of the recording method or the specific family relationship.

Telephone EavesdroppingWire Communication InterceptionFamily LawDomestic DisputesPrivacyFederal JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. 251118 U.S.C. 2520Marital Home
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1997

Abrams v. Kelsey-Seybold Medical Group, Inc.

Present and former African-American and Hispanic employees and unsuccessful job applicants filed a putative class action against Kelsey-Seybold Clinic and its associated entities, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Texas state law. Plaintiffs sought class certification for African-American applicants and employees seeking promotions/transfers. The court, presided over by Judge Rosenthal, denied the motion for class certification. The court found that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) and the "grounds generally applicable to the class" requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), citing the individualized nature of the discrimination claims and insufficient evidence of a company-wide discriminatory policy.

Class ActionEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactClass CertificationRule 23NumerosityCommonality
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 03-21-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2022

Vista Medical Center Hospital, Surgery Specialty Hospital of America, Southeast Houston and Vista Hospital of Dallas v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This appeal stems from a dispute over workers' compensation medical benefits reimbursement between multiple hospitals (Vista Parties) and numerous insurance carriers (Carriers) in Texas. The core issue revolves around the application of a "stop-loss exception" under Former Rule 134.401, designed for unusually costly or lengthy hospital stays, which the Vista Parties sought for 542 injured workers. After the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) largely denied additional reimbursement, the district court affirmed SOAH's order. The Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the district court's judgment, rejecting the Vista Parties' arguments that the SOAH order was arbitrary and capricious or lacked substantial evidence. The court found that SOAH properly conducted a case-by-case inquiry into whether services were "unusually costly and unusually extensive" and did not err in its application of the rule or in its findings.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementStop-Loss ExceptionAdministrative LawAppellate CourtTexas Court of AppealsSubstantial Evidence ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousFee GuidelinesHospital Reimbursement
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Mitchell

This case addresses whether prejudgment interest, awarded to a former wife from a former husband based on a disputed property settlement agreement, needs to be specifically pleaded as special damages under Rule 9.07 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals had ruled that such pleading was necessary. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee concluded that the award of prejudgment interest was authorized under a prayer for general relief, considering it a necessary result of the failure to pay an obligation. The Court likened prejudgment interest to attorney's fees, which are discretionary and do not always require special pleading when the amount is certain or ascertainable. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

Prejudgment InterestSpecial DamagesGeneral DamagesDivorce DecreeProperty Settlement AgreementRules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewEquityDiscretionary AwardAttorney's Fees
References
6
Case No. W2009-01774-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Stephen Ball v. Theodore Shockley

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 60.02 motion. The plaintiff, Stephen Ball, had previously sued the defendant, Theodore Shockley, for injuries arising out of a car accident. Shockley's motion for summary judgment was granted without opposition. Ball, after retaining new counsel, filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Ball argued the trial court erred by denying his motion, asserting his former attorney was grossly negligent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as there was no evidence of negligence by Ball's former attorney and Ball failed to provide proof of a meritorious defense.

AppealRule 60.02 MotionSummary JudgmentExcusable NeglectAttorney ConductAbuse of DiscretionFinal JudgmentCivil ProcedureVehicular AccidentNegligence
References
23
Case No. ADJ1622633 (VEN 0115623)
Regular
May 15, 2012

SALVADOR CONTRERAS vs. M&C FARM LABOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE PASADENA, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involves Salvador Contreras's petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim for new and further disability. The original claim was venued in Ventura/Oxnard, but Contreras filed his reopen petition in Los Angeles. The WCJ denied the petition based on former WCAB Rule 10390, which required filing in the proper district office and did not excuse non-compliance for filing in an incorrect office. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed this decision, holding that current WCAB Rule 10397, which allows filing in any office, applied as a procedural change. The Court also found that even under former Rule 10390, Contreras demonstrated excusable neglect, thus compelling the WCAB to grant reconsideration and return the case for a decision on the merits.

RemittiturPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5410Labor Code 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10397Excusable NeglectNew and Further DisabilityCourt of Appeal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkins v. Dallas County Hospital District

This case concerns the rules and formulas used to reimburse Texas teaching hospitals for a portion of their annual costs of providing graduate medical education (GME) to resident physicians from Medicaid funds. The Dallas County Hospital District, operating Parkland Memorial Hospital, sued the Health and Human Services Commission and its commissioner, Hawkins, seeking a declaratory judgment that the department's existing reimbursement rules were invalid and contrary to former section 32.0315 of the Texas Human Resources Code, which mandated reimbursement based on annual costs rather than a 1984 base-period figure. The district court ruled in favor of Parkland, granting summary judgment and a permanent injunction. On appeal, the department argued that the statute granted it broad discretion to establish alternative formulas. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that former section 32.0315(d) established a mandatory reimbursement formula, and the department's discretionary powers under other subsections were limited to calculating variables within that formula without contradicting its terms.

Medicaid ReimbursementGraduate Medical EducationTeaching HospitalsStatutory ConstructionAdministrative LawHealth and Human Services CommissionTexas LawPublic Funds AllocationDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent Injunction
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 12,369 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