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

Smith v. Foodmaker, Inc.

Joe and Georgie Smith appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted to Foodmaker, Inc. in their wrongful death claim, following the murder of their son, Timothy, at a Fort Worth Jack-in-the-Box restaurant. The Smiths alleged Foodmaker, as franchisor, was vicariously liable for the franchisee's (MDE, Inc.) negligence in providing inadequate security and negligent hiring of the co-worker who committed the murder. The appellate court applied Texas conflicts of law principles, concluding Texas law governed the tort claim despite a California choice-of-law provision in the franchise agreement. Under Texas law, the court found Foodmaker owed no legal duty to Timothy and did not control the specific security or hiring decisions of its independent contractor franchisee. Even if California law were applied, the court determined Foodmaker's control over the franchisee was insufficient to establish an agency relationship for liability. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment for Foodmaker was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAgency LawFranchisor LiabilityNegligent SecurityNegligent HiringIndependent ContractorConflicts of LawTexas LawCalifornia Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnes v. Wendy's International, Inc.

The case is an appeal from a summary judgment in a negligence and breach of contract suit. The appellant, an employee, sued the appellee (franchisor) and its franchisee/lessee for injuries from a fall in the franchised restaurant due to leaking plumbing. Appellant argued appellee owed a duty due to control reserved in franchise and lease agreements. The trial court granted summary judgment for appellee, finding no duty. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the lease placed maintenance obligations solely on the franchisee/lessee and appellant was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreements.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppealLandlord-Tenant LawFranchise LawThird-Party BeneficiaryContract LawDuty of CareBreach of Contract
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hatcher v. Augustus

The plaintiff, Philip Hatcher, a 7-Eleven store manager, initiated an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the franchisee, Warner Augustus, and the franchisor, Southland Corporation. Hatcher alleged wrongful termination based on his religion after being fired for refusing to work on Sunday mornings. Southland Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not Hatcher's employer within the context of Title VII. The court applied a 'hybrid test,' which combines economic realities and common law agency tests, to determine employer status. Despite Southland providing payroll services to the franchisee, the court found that Augustus had exclusive control over Hatcher's employment. The court concluded that Southland was not Hatcher's 'employer' under Title VII and granted Southland's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it.

Title VIIReligious DiscriminationFranchisor LiabilityEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementHybrid TestControl TestEconomic Realities TestEmployment Law
References
30
Case No. ADJ8742173
Regular
Oct 01, 2018

JOSE MARDOQUEO PEREZ vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION, dba CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Friendly Franchisees Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order. The defendant sought to stay a lien by Reshealth Medical Group under Labor Code section 4615, arguing Reshealth was controlled by Eric Schames, a criminally charged provider. However, the Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish Schames was an officer or director of Reshealth Medical Group, as opposed to Reshealth Diagnostics. Therefore, the lien was not subject to the section 4615 stay.

Labor Code section 4615Labor Code section 139.21Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderlien stayAdministrative DirectorFranchise Tax Boardcorporate suspensionEric Schames
References
3
Case No. ADJ9653107
Regular
Jun 04, 2015

FERNANDO ALVARADO vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION dba DFG RESTAURANTS, UNITED STATES F FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRUM & FORSTER

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Friendly Franchisees Corporation. The defendant sought to remove an order that continued a workers' compensation hearing to allow the applicant to submit exhibits. The Appeals Board denied the petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the judge's decision to allow the applicant to enter medical evidence, under CCP § 473, outweighed any alleged harm to the defendant and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationADJ9653107AOE/COE trialCal. Code of Civil Procedure § 473inadvertent omission
References
5
Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blimpie International, Inc. v. Blimpie of the Keys

Blimpie International, Inc. initiated an action against its sub-franchisor, Blimpie of the Keys, seeking to compel individual arbitration and a declaratory judgment. This suit arose after Blimpie of the Keys, along with 44 other sub-franchisors, filed a consolidated arbitration demand against Blimpie International with the American Arbitration Association, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation. The central legal question was whether the court or an arbitrator should decide if the arbitration provision allowed for consolidated arbitration proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle, the court determined that the issue of consolidation is a procedural matter best resolved by an arbitrator, not the judiciary. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was granted, rendering the plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and for declaratory relief moot.

ArbitrationSub-franchise AgreementContract InterpretationFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory JudgmentConsolidationClass ArbitrationJudicial DeterminationArbitrator's Role
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dipilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Angela DiPilato, a 43-year-old single female, applied to become a 7-Eleven franchisee and was denied. She alleged discrimination based on age, gender, and marital status, filing claims under federal and New York State laws against 7-Eleven and its employees Lynch, Hagler, and Rubinett. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment to defendants on most claims but denying it for claims under New York State Human Rights Law § 296(5)(b) against 7-Eleven and Lynch, and New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c against all defendants. District Judge Cathy Seibel reviewed objections and adopted the R&R, concluding that summary judgment is granted to defendants on most claims, denied for the two specified NY state law claims, and affirmed the order denying leave to amend the complaint. The court found that franchisees are independent contractors, thus federal employment discrimination claims (Title VII, ADEA) were dismissed, as were conspiracy claims and most state constitutional claims.

DiscriminationFranchise LawSummary JudgmentMagistrate Report and RecommendationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationMarital Status DiscriminationNew York Human Rights LawNew York Civil Rights LawIndependent Contractor
References
74
Case No. ADJ9085589
Regular
Jun 12, 2015

CLAUDIA MARTINEZ vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORP. dba CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a dismissal order, finding the applicant's case should not have been dismissed due to her absence from trial. The WCAB clarified that while an applicant's testimony may be necessary, their mere failure to appear when represented by counsel does not automatically permit dismissal. Instead, the defendant must follow proper procedures to compel the applicant's attendance, or the WCJ should consider sanctions or an adverse inference. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCAB Rule 10562Petition for ReconsiderationSet Aside DismissalApplicant Failure to AppearCounsel PresenceWCJ ErrorNotice of Intention to DismissOrder of DismissalGood Cause to ReopenError of Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ9422751
Regular
May 02, 2017

ANGANYE CHOY vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION DBA CARL'S JR, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by CRUM AND FORSTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, finding the panel qualified medical examiner's opinion to be substantial evidence based on adequate examination and reasoning. The Board affirmed that one physician's relevant opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if contradicted. Furthermore, no good cause was established for further discovery after the mandatory settlement conference.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsubstantial evidencemedical opinionreasonable medical probabilityPQMEadequate examinationconsistent medical opinionsdiscoverymandatory settlement conference
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 23 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