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. 04-02-00729-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2003

Saint Paul Fire and Marine, Suing in the Name of Nora Espinoza v. Lori Odness

Nora Espinoza appeals the trial court's granting of Lori Odness's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Espinoza's former employer's worker's compensation insurance carrier, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), filed suit against Odness in Espinoza's name following an automobile accident where Espinoza was acting within the scope of her employment. St. Paul, having paid Espinoza's medical bills and worker's compensation benefits, sought to recover these damages from Odness. The trial court granted Odness's no-evidence summary judgment motion, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal because St. Paul's claims adjuster's business records affidavit lacked a statement of personal knowledge, thus failing to constitute valid summary judgment evidence.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentBusiness Records AffidavitPersonal KnowledgeSubrogationNegligenceAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 04-09-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. v. Andrew Espinoza and Howmedica Osteronics Corp. D/B/A Stryker Orthopedics

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. (CTOP) sued Andrew Espinoza for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopedics (Stryker) for tortious interference. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Espinoza and Stryker, and a jury found Espinoza breached fiduciary duty but awarded no damages. On appeal, CTOP challenged the summary judgments and attorney's fees awarded to Espinoza. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying the unclean hands doctrine to CTOP's claims as the alleged misconduct was separate from the disputed contract. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Espinoza's entitlement to compensation due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DoctrineNon-Compete AgreementCompensation AgreementTexas Payday ActAppellate ReviewReversed and Remanded
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Espinoza v. Miller's Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

Plaintiff-appellant Espinoza appealed a summary judgment in a workmen's compensation case, which denied him additional disability benefits after a Board-authorized shoulder surgery. He contended entitlement to further compensation under Art. 8306, Sections 12e and 12b, following the operation that left him with a complete and then partial disability. The Industrial Accident Board had previously awarded initial compensation but denied additional claims post-surgery. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that the defendant-appellee insurance carrier failed to prove the absence of genuine material fact issues. Consequently, the case was remanded for trial, affirming the potential for Espinoza to recover additional compensation.

Workers' CompensationSummary Judgment AppealAdditional Disability BenefitsSurgical OperationIndustrial Accident BoardRes JudicataChange of ConditionShoulder InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityTexas Civil Procedure
References
7
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05466 [129 AD3d 1058]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Torres v. St. Francis College

Oscar Torres, a janitor, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cleaning a basketball backboard at St. Francis College. He, along with his wife, brought an action against St. Francis College alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding that the injured plaintiff's work constituted routine maintenance not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also found no evidence that the defendant created or had notice of a dangerous condition, or had the authority to supervise the plaintiff's work methods, thus dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoutine MaintenanceElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceLadder FallPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05172 [220 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Matter of Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Jaime Espinoza, a safety manager, sustained injuries while pulling a gate in a parking area adjacent to a construction site after his shift. He filed for workers' compensation, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer neither controlled the parking area nor was it part of the jobsite. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Court found a sufficient nexus between the employment and the parking area, noting that Espinoza was instructed to park there and construction materials were stored by the general contractor in the same vicinity, thereby extending the employer's premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryParking Area InjuryPremises Extension DoctrineRemittalAppellate Division Third DepartmentConstruction SiteSafety ManagerArising Out of Employment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meling v. St. Francis College

Barbara Meling sued St. Francis College and its president, Donald Sullivan, alleging wrongful termination due to physical disabilities, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. A jury found in Meling's favor, awarding $225,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages. The defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to set aside punitive damages were denied, upholding the jury's verdicts. The court also granted Meling $141,251 in back pay with interest and ordered her reinstatement as an Assistant Professor of Physical Education. However, her request for reinstatement with tenure was denied, as the court opted not to intervene in the university's tenure decision-making process.

Disability discriminationWrongful terminationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActCompensatory damagesPunitive damagesBack payReinstatementTenureAcademic freedom
References
24
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03157
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Grella v. St. Francis Hospital

Patricia Grella appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment dismissing her complaint against St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center Federal Credit Union. Grella alleged unlawful age discrimination under the Human Rights Law and retaliation under Labor Law § 215, stemming from her separation from employment in 2011. She contended she was discharged due to her age (50 and replaced by a 25-year-old) and in retaliation for complaining about an inconsistent vacation day policy. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. While the court acknowledged triable issues of fact regarding Grella's prima facie age discrimination claim, it ultimately found that the defendants had presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination (aggressive behavior) and that Grella failed to demonstrate these reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, her retaliation claim failed as she did not identify a specific provision of the Labor Law that she reasonably believed was violated.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentHuman Rights LawLabor LawPrima Facie CasePretextAppellate ReviewEmployment LawDischarge
References
25
Case No. 11-22-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

George Francis Sheehan, Jr. v. Pamela Sheehan

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce where Appellant, George Francis Sheehan, Jr., contended the trial court erred by characterizing proceeds from an underinsured-motorist-claim settlement as community property. George was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 and received a UIM settlement of $1,250,000 in 2019, with a net amount of $710,724.25 deposited into a joint checking account with Pamela Sheehan before their final separation. George argued the funds were his separate property based on a second settlement agreement executed after the funds were received and disbursed, which allocated proceeds to personal injury damages. The Eleventh Court of Appeals, however, found the first settlement agreement, executed contemporaneously with the mediation, did not allocate specific damages and that the later agreement did not alter the marital property characterization. The court concluded that George failed to meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence which portion of the settlement proceeds was his separate property, as the first settlement released both community and separate property claims. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

divorcecommunity propertyseparate propertyunderinsured motorist claimsettlement proceedsmarital propertyabuse of discretionclear and convincing evidencepersonal injury damagesTexas Family Code
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06028
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2019

Matter of Francis v. Buckbee Mears Cortland

Claimant Michelle I. Francis sustained a work-related back injury in 1995, receiving benefits until 2003 when liability shifted to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After a request for medical treatment in 2010 was resolved without prejudice, claimant successfully sought authorization for lumbar surgery in 2015. However, a subsequent request for lost wage compensation in 2016 was opposed by the Special Fund, which argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 123 barred further awards. The Workers' Compensation Board agreed, finding the case truly closed as of January 12, 2011, and that more than 18 years had passed since the injury and eight years since the last payment. Claimant appealed this Board decision, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed the appeal as untimely, noting that the notice of appeal was filed beyond the 30-day statutory period.

Untimely AppealStatute of LimitationsReopened CasesSpecial FundIndemnity BenefitsLumbar SurgeryWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionClaim ClosureBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. 01-04-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2005

Daniel Lopez v. the Homebuilding Company, Inc., and Francis Edmon Waddle

Daniel Lopez, who sustained injuries from a fall while performing stone masonry work, appealed a final summary judgment rendered in favor of The Homebuilding Company, Inc. and Francis Edmon Waddle (Homebuilding). The judgment dismissed Lopez’s negligence and gross negligence claims. Homebuilding argued Lopez was an employee of an independent contractor, to whom they owed no legal duty. Lopez contended the trial court erred by granting summary judgment due to fact issues on Homebuilding's control over his work, unaddressed premises-defect theory, and the potential extension of the "deemed employer" doctrine. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding Lopez failed to raise a fact issue on premises-defect or actual control by Homebuilding, and waived the "deemed employer" argument.

Summary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsGross Negligence ClaimsIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityGeneral Contractor DutyRight of ControlFall ProtectionSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 151 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