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. 2-09-057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2010

Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Home, Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Directors, Hampton-Vaughan Funeral Directors, Inc., SCI Funeral Services of Texas, Inc., Hampton-Vaughan Crestview Memoria, SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., and Crestview Memorial Park v. Beverly N. Briscoe, Don I. Briscoe, Jr., Rebecca L. Llenas, Lori K. Morrow, Cherl L. Teague, Thomas E. Briscoe, and Anna M. Evans

This case is an appeal from a no-answer default judgment issued by the 89th District Court of Wichita County. Appellants, a group of funeral home entities, challenged the trial court's decision to strike a supplement to their motion to set aside the default judgment and the denial of that motion, which had been rendered against them for alleged mishandling of cremated remains. The Second District Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, determined that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the supplement as untimely, as the default judgment was not final until claims against other defendants were nonsuited. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that appellants satisfied the three elements of the Craddock test for setting aside a default judgment: their failure to answer was not intentional, they presented a meritorious defense, and appellees showed no injury from a new trial. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Default JudgmentAppealMotion to Set AsideCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseCivil ProcedureFuneral ServicesDamagesTexas Law
References
15
Case No. 03-03-00458-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Anderson-Clayton Bros. Funeral Home, Inc. Restland of Dallas, Inc. Restland Funeral Home Singing Hills Funeral Home, Inc. Laurel Land Funeral Home of Forth Worth, Inc. Blue Bonnet Hills Funeral Home, Inc. And Blue Bonnet Hills Memorial Park, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case addresses the Texas franchise tax treatment of earnings from out-of-state investments made by Texas prepaid funeral benefits trusts. The Appellants, a group of affiliated funeral homes (Anderson-Clayton), argued these earnings should be considered out-of-state receipts for franchise tax apportionment. The Comptroller of Public Accounts contended they were Texas receipts, leading to a higher tax bill for Anderson-Clayton. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Comptroller. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the 'accounting methods' provision of the tax code did not dictate the sourcing of receipts, and under the 'location of the payor' rule, the Texas-domiciled trusts were deemed the payors, making the investment income Texas receipts.

Franchise TaxInvestment EarningsPrepaid Funeral TrustsTax ApportionmentTexas Tax CodeLocation of Payor RuleSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAccounting MethodsEarned Surplus
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Funeral Directors Ass'n v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, including the Metropolitan Funeral Directors Association, John C. Sommese, Anthony J. Martino, Hess-Miller Funeral Home, Inc., and Simonson Funeral Home, Inc., initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), and Commissioner Jules Polonetsky. The plaintiffs challenged four recently amended DCA rules (5-162, 5-164, 5-165, 5-166) pertaining to the regulation of the funeral home industry. They contended that these rules were preempted by State law, exceeded the Commissioner's authority, lacked a legitimate government purpose, were unconstitutionally vague, and were arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these rules, arguing that their implementation would cause irreparable harm to their businesses. Defendants countered that the rules were consumer-protective, a rational exercise of authority, and consistent with State law, citing a February 1999 DCA investigation report titled "The High Cost of Dying." The court, presided over by Justice Richard F. Braun, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or a favorable balance of equities. The court also noted the plaintiffs' incomplete statement as required by CPLR 6001.

Funeral Home RegulationConsumer ProtectionDeclaratory JudgmentPreliminary InjunctionState PreemptionLocal OrdinancesAdministrative LawStatutory AuthorityUnconstitutionally VagueArbitrary and Capricious
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harmon Funeral Home, Inc.

Judge Mikoll dissents from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an employer-employee relationship between Harmon Funeral Home, Inc. and its pallbearers. The dissent argues that there is not substantial evidence to support this conclusion, citing a lack of control and direction by the funeral home over the pallbearers. Pallbearers are sourced from a livery service, not instructed by the funeral home, and receive no employee benefits. Although a union agreement designated pallbearers as employees, the dissent states this factor alone should not be determinative given the overall circumstances indicating an independent contractor relationship. The dissent concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed.

Employer-employee relationshipPallbearersIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationUnion agreementControl and directionLivery serviceDissentFuneral homeLabor law
References
1
Case No. E2013-00261-COA-R10-CV-FILED-JULY 29, 2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2013

Jason Cooper v. Robert Ledford Funeral Home, Inc.

This case involves an extraordinary appeal concerning whether Robert Ledford Funeral Home, Inc. (Funeral Home) was entitled to summary judgment regarding a vehicle accident caused by its "on call" employee, Johnny Tipton. Plaintiffs Jason Cooper, Brooke Cooper, and Sylvia Renfroe sued Tipton, Angela Frey, and the Funeral Home after Tipton, while traveling to clock in for an on-call assignment, collided with Sylvia Renfroe's vehicle. The core issue was if Tipton was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The appellate court, reversing the trial court's denial of summary judgment, determined that Tipton was not acting within the scope of his employment, as his commute in a private vehicle, even for an on-call assignment, did not primarily benefit the employer and was not under the employer's control.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityOn-Call EmployeeSummary JudgmentAutomobile AccidentScope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleTort LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Commute
References
14
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. 2017-04-0093 / 13763-2017
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

JEFFREY MOLANDS, Administrator, THE ESTATE OF MARSHA MOLANDS v. ACCESS PROGRAM

Marsha Molands, a home health nurse for Access Program, suffered low-back and left-shoulder injuries in 2017. She underwent two back surgeries in 2019 and 2023. Following the second surgery, she developed a wound infection, sepsis, and related complications, leading to her death in April 2024. Her husband, Jeffrey Molands, as Administrator of her estate and sole dependent, sought death benefits, additional temporary total disability (TTD) benefits, medical expenses, and funeral expenses. The Court found that Ms. Molands’s death arose primarily out of her 2017 work injury, largely based on the medical examiner’s testimony that infections from her surgeries caused a "death spiral." Consequently, the Court granted death benefits to Mr. Molands at a rate of 50% of Ms. Molands’s average weekly wage, along with reimbursement for medical and funeral expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Molands’s request for a lump-sum payment of future death benefits, citing statutory limitations and a lack of "exceptional circumstances." It also denied additional TTD benefits from August 2020 to July 2023, determining that Ms. Molands had reached maximum medical improvement in August 2020. Attorney's fees were awarded to Mr. Molands' counsel.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationMedical CausationSpinal InjurySepsisInfectionLaminectomyFusion SurgeryMaximum Medical ImprovementTemporary Total Disability
References
9
Case No. 13-10-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2012

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc. v. Leticia Leal

This case involved an appeal from a trial court judgment that found Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. liable for fraud concerning burial plots. The appellees, families of Rodolfo Garza and Charles Rogers, alleged fraud and sought damages for mental anguish. The jury found fraud but also found that most appellees had not filed within the four-year statute of limitations, a finding the trial court disregarded. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Texas reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, concluding that all claims except Leticia Leal's were barred by limitations and that there was legally insufficient evidence for mental anguish damages for most appellees. Consequently, the awards for actual and exemplary damages were also reversed.

Fraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsMental Anguish DamagesExemplary DamagesBurial DisputesCemetery PracticesCorporate LiabilityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
25
Case No. 126300 R.D.
Regular Panel Decision

Bazner v. American States Insurance Co.

Walter Bazner, an insulator diagnosed with asbestosis, previously received workers' compensation benefits from L.D. Powell & Company and its insurer, American States Insurance Company, for permanent total disability and medical expenses incurred up to the judgment date. When Bazner incurred additional medical expenses post-judgment, American refused payment, arguing the prior judgment was res judicata and required pre-approval for new expenses. Bazner initiated a new suit, and the trial court sided with him. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Bazner's claim for future medical expenses was not barred, reiterating that such expenses are recoverable under T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and established procedural rules for seeking them via petition in the original action. The court also found Bazner's decision to seek further medical attention from his treating physician reasonable under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding future medical payments and related issues.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseFuture Medical ExpensesPost-Judgment CareRes Judicata DefenseEmployer Medical AuthorizationInsurance LiabilityStatutory BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemand Order
References
6
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Showing 1-10 of 1,499 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