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

Act for Health v. Case Management Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs Act for Health d/b/a Professional Case Management (PCM) and its subsidiary PCM of Tennessee, Inc. (PCMT) sued defendant Case Management Associates, Inc. d/b/a Freedom Care (Freedom Care). Plaintiffs provide in-home care under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and allege Freedom Care operates unlawfully in Tennessee without proper licensing and a certificate of need. Plaintiffs also claimed tortious interference with business relationships, tortious inducement to breach employment agreements, violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and common law unfair competition. The Court found Freedom Care's licensing arrangement with Jellico Community Hospital unlawful and granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on that issue. It denied summary judgment for both parties on the TCPA and inducement claims, but granted summary judgment to Freedom Care on the unfair competition claim. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.

Workers' CompensationHome Health ServicesLicensing RegulationsCertificate of NeedTortious InterferenceUnfair CompetitionTennessee Consumer Protection ActRestrictive CovenantsTrade SecretsSummary Judgment
References
29
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokko v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Plaintiff, a general utility worker employed by the defendant, was reported to authorities by an instructor for asking suspicious questions about manhole safety. A Joint Terrorist Task Force investigated the concerns but found them unsubstantiated. Plaintiff claims he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the incident and alleges discrimination based on his race, national origin, and religion, violating the New York State Human Rights Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to restore certain causes of action, citing a failure to allege disparate impact and protection under the Freedom to Report Terrorism Act. The court also affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint for intentional tort and discrimination, noting that while a disability claim for PTSD might state a cause of action for failure to accommodate, it was being pursued in a separate action, rendering the amendment motion academic.

Employment discriminationRacial discriminationNational origin discriminationReligious discriminationHostile work environmentPost-traumatic stress disorderDisability claimFailure to accommodateFreedom to Report Terrorism ActAppellate affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buzek v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Eric Buzek, a field service technician for The Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG), sought compensation for time spent driving home from his last service call and performing end-of-day reporting from home. Buzek argued these activities, including transporting tools and using a company e-pad for reports, were "principal activities" under the Portal-to-Portal Act, and therefore compensable. PBG contended that the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act (ECFA) exempts these activities as "incidental to" the use of a company vehicle for commuting. The court, after examining statutory interpretation and legislative history, concluded that transporting tools and making end-of-day reports are indeed incidental to commuting under ECFA and thus non-compensable under the FLSA. Consequently, the court recommended granting PBG's motion for summary judgment and denying Buzek's motion.

Employee Commuting Flexibility ActECFAPortal-to-Portal ActFair Labor Standards ActFLSACompensable TimeNon-compensable ActivitiesCommutingCompany VehicleIncidental Activities
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. 11 Civ. 6990, 11 Civ. 7562
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. United States Department of Justice

The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) actions against the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). They sought the public disclosure of a classified report to Congress regarding foreign intelligence collection authorized by section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court, after an in camera review of the report, determined that it was properly withheld under FOIA Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (intelligence sources and methods, National Security Act of 1947). The Court rejected arguments regarding 'secret law' and bad faith, and found that redaction was not feasible due to the inextricable intertwining of exempt and non-exempt material. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the Government's motions for summary judgment were granted.

FOIANational SecurityUSA PATRIOT ActSection 215Classified InformationSummary JudgmentExemption 1Exemption 3Intelligence SourcesGovernment Transparency
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2010

Lyons Partnership, L.P. v. D & L Amusement & Entertainment, Inc.

Plaintiffs Lyons Partnership, L.P. and HIT Entertainment Inc. initiated a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit against D & L Amusement & Entertainment Inc., Razzle Kidazzle Inc., Linda Lippo, All in One Entertainment, Inc., and John R. Albuja. The defendants were accused of infringing on the intellectual property rights of popular children's characters, Barney® and Bob the Builder®, by using unauthorized counterfeit costumes for entertainment services. Due to the defendants' failure to respond, Magistrate Judge Marilyn Go issued a Report and Recommendation, finding them liable for various Lanham Act and Copyright Act violations. Senior District Judge Sterling B. Johnson subsequently adopted this report in its entirety. As a result, a permanent injunction was granted against the defendants, and they were ordered to pay statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs for their willful infringement.

Intellectual PropertyCopyright InfringementTrademark InfringementDefault JudgmentLanham ActStatutory DamagesPermanent InjunctionAttorneys' FeesChildren's CharactersCounterfeit Goods
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Coronado

This interlocutory appeal concerned a media defendant's (Freedom Communications, Inc.) motion for summary judgment in a defamation and invasion of privacy lawsuit. The plaintiffs (Coronado) alleged that Freedom published a political advertisement falsely accusing them of child abuse. The trial court judge, Abel Limas, denied Freedom's motion. Subsequently, Limas pleaded guilty to federal racketeering, admitting he accepted a bribe for his ruling in this case, making him constitutionally disqualified. Due to the judge's disqualification, his order was void, thus depriving appellate courts of jurisdiction to address the merits. The court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judicial DisqualificationJudicial CorruptionVoid OrderSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionBriberyRacketeeringDefamationInvasion of Privacy
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2006

Voight v. R.L. Eldridge Construction Inc.

The case concerns Charles W. Voight's claims against his former employer, R.L. Eldridge Construction, Inc., and Gabby’s Dock Shipyard, for on-the-job injuries. Voight sought recovery under the Longshore & Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (LHWCA) and the Jones Act. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and for partial summary judgment. District Judge Heartfield adopted this report, dismissing the LHWCA claim due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the Jones Act claim because Voight did not meet the criteria for "seaman" status. Consequently, all claims against the defendants were disposed of, and a final judgment was entered in their favor.

Jones ActLHWCASeaman StatusVessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionMaritime LawPersonal InjuryEmployer Negligence
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 12,199 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