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

In re Frank Y.

The case involves an appeal by Frank Z. against a Family Court order from Chemung County, dated January 27, 2003, which found his children neglected. The initial neglect proceedings in 2001 were based on the mother's physical abuse and Frank Z.'s failure to protect his children. After conditions including an order of protection against the mother, Frank Z. violated these terms by permitting the mother to have contact with the children and by inflicting corporal punishment. Following further hearings, the Family Court sustained the neglect petition and placed the children in petitioner's custody for one year. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the neglect finding, including Frank Z.'s willful violation of the protection order and corroborated statements from the children regarding corporal punishment.

Child NeglectFamily CourtOrder of ProtectionCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAppellate ReviewCorroboration of Child StatementsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. 03-06-00208-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2008

Shelly Frank, as Beneficiary of Eric Frank v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Texas Workers' Compensation Commission rules regarding notice for appellate deadlines. Justice Waldrop contends that Rule 102.5(a) merely dictates the sending of communications to both claimants and their lawyers, but does not define the start of appeal deadlines. He states that the Texas Labor Code section 410.202 and Rule 143.3 clearly establish that the 15-day appeal period commences upon the claimant's receipt of the hearing officer's decision. The dissent concludes that the appellant, Shelly Frank, failed to meet the statutory deadline as she personally received the decision, and therefore, the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Workers' Compensation AppealsNotice DeadlinesStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Rules InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial DeferenceClaimant RepresentationAppellate DeadlinesJurisdictional RequirementsLegal Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Sematech, Inc.

This case involves an injured employee's third-party liability cause of action and an insurance carrier's derivative claim of subrogation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company appealed from a summary judgment in favor of appellees Sem-atech, Inc. and Burle Industries, Inc., while appellant Charlie Franks appealed the dismissal of his plea in intervention due to the statute of limitations. Franks was injured in 1991, and Industrial Indemnity, his employer's workers' compensation carrier, filed a subrogation lawsuit in 1993. Franks intervened in 1994, asserting negligence claims against the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Franks's plea, ruling it was time-barred and could not relate back to Industrial Indemnity's original petition, which only asserted its subrogation claim, not Franks's underlying third-party liability claim. Consequently, the appellate court also affirmed the summary judgment for appellees, finding Industrial Indemnity's derivative subrogation claim moot since Franks's recovery rights could not be established.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionDerivative ClaimsTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial
References
40
Case No. 01-13-00923-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2014

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey v. Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey appealed the dismissal of their claims against Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey, which arose from the conveyance of real property. Virginia and John had sold property to their son Frank and his wife Terry, then later sued to set aside the conveyance, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Frank and Terry asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance. The trial court initially dismissed Virginia and John's claims, then reinstated Frank and Terry's counterclaims, and subsequently dismissed Virginia and John's claims for want of prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Virginia and John failed to properly assign error to the final judgment (the June 24th dismissal for want of prosecution) and did not preserve their argument for appellate review, nor provide evidence meeting the Craddock standard.

Real PropertyProperty ConveyanceFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConspiracy to Commit FraudBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceDismissal of ClaimsWant of ProsecutionAppellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. No. 16565
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Franks

Robert Lee Franks sued Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained from a caboose derailment in 1961. A jury found the railroad negligent, exonerated Franks, and awarded $116,250 in damages. The railroad appealed on multiple grounds, including objections to medical testimony, the refusal to submit certain issues regarding employee status and rule violations, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court systematically addressed and overruled all of the railroad's points, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict in favor of Franks.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjuryRailroad AccidentCaboose DerailmentNegligencePost-Concussion SyndromeDamages AwardedAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony AdmissibilityExcessive Damages Claim
References
18
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2002

Frank v. Plaza Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Frank filed suit against Plaza Construction Corporation, Fisher Brothers, and Steven Fisher alleging sexual harassment, gender-based disparate treatment, disability discrimination under the ADA for dyslexia, and retaliatory discharge. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Title VII sexual harassment claims (hostile work environment and quid pro quo) and the disparate treatment claim. However, the ADA claim was dismissed as Frank failed to provide sufficient evidence of a substantially limiting impairment. The retaliatory discharge claim was partially dismissed, surviving only in relation to alleged complaints about sexual harassment by Peter Hulbert.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeADA ClaimDyslexiaSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law
References
30
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05267 [220 AD3d 882]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2023

Omwathath v. Frank E. Basil, Inc.

Lakhram Omwathath filed an action seeking damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering after the death of the decedent, who was injured while working for Frank E. Basil, Inc. The decedent and subsequently the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, which the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the claims against Frank E. Basil, Inc. were barred and no allegations were made against Data Dimensions.

wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingworkers' compensationmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a)documentary evidenceemployer immunityappellate affirmanceprocedural lawstatutory bar
References
4
Case No. 01-02-01105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

Marvin Frank Motor Co. v. Harris County

Marvin Frank Motor Company appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Harris County $19,001.22 in damages. Harris County, acting as a subrogee and self-insured workers' compensation carrier, sued Marvin Frank Motor Company to recover benefits paid to its injured employee, Mark Amato, following a vehicle accident. The appellant raised six points of error concerning the admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the damages award. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed the trial court's decisions, including the admission of affidavits and testimony regarding medical expenditures and workers' compensation payments. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirmed the judgment in favor of Harris County.

Subrogation LawAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ChallengesJury Charge ErrorLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Civil PracticeCollateral Source DoctrineMedical Care CostsLost Wage Damages
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 331 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