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. M2020-01509-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2022

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

McKayla Taylor filed a lawsuit against twelve defendants, including Kellye Reid and Cookeville Regional Medical Center (CRMC), concerning the adoption of her child and sought $50 million in damages. The initial trial court dismissed all claims, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Upon remand, Ms. Reid sought and was awarded attorney fees under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, with CRMC paying the fees. Ms. Taylor appealed this award, challenging the statute's applicability and constitutionality, specifically her right to access the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the statute applicable and constitutional, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Attorney FeesGovernmental Tort Liability ActConstitutional ChallengeAccess to CourtsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessStatute ConstitutionalityAppellate ReviewDismissal of ClaimsSocial Worker Liability
References
55
Case No. W2004-00305-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Donald Glidewell initiated a detainer action against Ann Russell to regain possession of his property. Russell had been residing on the property with Glidewell's brother, Hugh, and continued to live there after Hugh's death, making significant improvements based on an alleged promise from Glidewell that she could stay for life. The trial court sided with Russell, applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, acknowledging Glidewell's promise but limiting its enforceability. The court determined that Russell's significant improvements were made before the clear promise and her reliance after the promise was for minor expenditures. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded, granting Glidewell possession while ordering a hearing to assess damages for Russell's expenditures made in reliance on Glidewell's promise after Hugh's death.

Promissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelDetainer ActionProperty RightsReal EstateImprovements to PropertyRelianceBreach of PromiseReversal and RemandAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an appellee's motion for rehearing, which was overruled. The core of the decision distinguishes the current case from Westchester Fire Insurance Co. v. Alvarez. In Westchester, the motion for summary judgment failed to state any grounds, a defect of form that was waived because it was not excepted to prior to judgment. In the present case, the appellee did state specific grounds for summary judgment (no duty to replace the door due to no covenant to repair and gratuitous promise), but did not state the exculpatory clause as a ground. The court found that appellants did not waive their right to complain on appeal because appellee's motion, by stating specific grounds and omitting others, was calculated to mislead appellants, preventing them from excepting to the omitted ground. Therefore, the exculpatory clause could not be urged for the first time on appeal to prevent reversal.

RehearingSummary JudgmentWaiverExculpatory ClauseProcedural DefectTexas LawAppellate ReviewGrounds for MotionMisleading MotionDuty to Repair
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1989

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Joseph Scallon, former president of Microwave Products of America (MPA), sought payment for post-petition salary and expenses as an administrative claim after MPA filed for bankruptcy. He claimed extensive hours and travel costs for his services as president and CEO, along with two weeks of severance pay. Presiding Judge Bernice Bouie Donald meticulously scrutinized Scallon's application due to his fiduciary role. The court allowed a salary claim of $3,000 for one week of necessary services rendered to preserve the estate. However, Scallon's $6,000 severance pay claim was reclassified as a non-priority general unsecured claim, as it was deemed a gratuitous promise rather than a bargained-for or necessary expense. Additionally, $1,861.71 in post-petition expenses was allowed as a priority claim, contingent upon the submission of proper documentation to the U.S. Trustee and payment upon plan confirmation.

Bankruptcy AdministrationAdministrative ClaimsPriority ClaimsSeverance PayPost-petition ExpensesFiduciary DutyOfficer CompensationDebtor-in-possessionEmployee ClaimsClaim Scrutiny
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the second and third degrees and scheme to defraud, stemming from a fraudulent 'investment club' where he promised co-workers significant returns on investments. The defendant appealed, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish larcenous intent and larceny by false promise. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, which showed the defendant never opened investor accounts, used the money for personal debts, and fled to California when pressed by investors. The court concluded that these facts established to a moral certainty that the defendant never intended to fulfill his promises, thus affirming the judgment of conviction.

Grand LarcenyScheme to DefraudInvestment Club FraudLarceny by False PromiseCriminal IntentSufficiency of EvidencePromissory FraudAppellate ReviewConviction AffirmedPenal Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns a plaintiff's lawsuit against her employer, alleging four state law causes of action: breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of a verbal hiring promise, breach of promissory estoppel, and a combined claim of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing against these claims. The court, presided over by District Judge Prado, analyzed Texas law, finding no legal basis for an implied covenant of good faith in employment contracts or for verbal hiring promises under the statute of frauds. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite promise for her promissory estoppel claims. Consequently, the motion for partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment LawTexasContract LawAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentPromissory EstoppelGood FaithFair DealingWrongful DischargeStatute of Frauds
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that imposed a constructive trust on a pizzeria business and its building in favor of the plaintiff, the deceased Giuseppe Cinquemani's wife. The plaintiff alleged that defendant Francesco Lazio had promised to convey the business to her and her husband, a claim disputed by the defendants, Francesco and Eleanora Lazio. Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court found the elements of a constructive trust — a confidential relationship, a promise, a transfer in reliance, and unjust enrichment — were met. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, upholding the lower court's findings of fact and its rejection of the defendants' arguments under the Dead Man's Statute and claims of judicial bias. The court specifically noted that the plaintiff and her late husband had fulfilled the conditions of the alleged promise, including substantial payments and operation of the business for over a decade.

Constructive TrustFamily DisputePizzeria BusinessReal PropertyOral AgreementUnjust EnrichmentConfidential RelationshipDead Man's StatuteAppellate AffirmationNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Carmen Valdez sued the City of New York after her estranged boyfriend shot her, claiming the City failed to provide adequate police protection. Valdez alleged a "special relationship" was formed when Officer Torres promised to "immediately" arrest her boyfriend after a threat, leading her to return home. The jury initially found the City negligent, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding no special relationship was established due to a lack of justifiable reliance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that Valdez's reliance on the officer's promise to arrest her boyfriend "immediately" was not justifiable, especially given the elapsed time and her expectation of a confirmation call. The Court emphasized that a special relationship requires justifiable reliance, which was not met as there were no extraneous factors beyond the promise contributing to her sense of security, and the police did not know the boyfriend's location for an immediate arrest.

Police ProtectionSpecial RelationshipGovernmental ImmunityJustifiable RelianceNegligenceDomestic ViolenceDuty of CareMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActPublic Duty Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

E. P. Hendrich, an employee of C. E. Sehaff, the receiver for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company of Texas and the Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railway Company of Texas, sued for personal injuries. Hendrich, a foreman of a tank gang, slipped on wet cinders in a roundhouse pit while working on an engine tank and injured his breast. The pit's drainpipe was obstructed, leading to a slippery condition that Hendrich had previously reported to his foreman, Mr. Varley, who gave an equivocal response. The defense argued that Hendrich assumed the risks of his injury, especially since he was engaged in interstate commerce, and that Varley's response did not constitute a promise to remedy the unsafe condition. The court concluded that Varley's statement 'Well, I will see' was insufficient to support a promise to remedy, and since no such promise was pleaded or submitted to the jury, the exception to the common-law rule of assumed risk did not apply. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Hendrich was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of the appellant (receiver).

Assumed RiskInterstate CommerceFederal Employers' Liability ActRailway AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceSlippery ConditionRoundhouse PitForeman NotificationPromise to Remedy
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.

AnnulmentRemandUnpaid wagesIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of Department of LaborWorkers' relianceEnforceable promiseCourt of AppealsAppellate reviewLabor Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 156 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