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

Fernandez v. Kiesling

Appellant, Mrs. Shirley Fernandez, joined by her husband, filed a lawsuit against Appellee, Mrs. Vivian F. Kiesling, for personal injuries resulting from a car accident. Mrs. Fernandez was a passenger in Mrs. Kiesling's car, which collided with a parked vehicle. The jury found Mrs. Kiesling negligent but also determined that Mrs. Fernandez was a 'guest' under the Texas Guest Statute, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Mrs. Fernandez appealed, arguing she was a passenger for hire, that the jury instruction regarding 'payment or agreement to pay a share of operating expenses' was a comment on the evidence, and that the instruction requiring payment to be 'the motivating cause' instead of 'a motivating cause' was erroneous. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the precedent that a tangible benefit must be 'the motivating influence' for furnishing transportation to remove a passenger from the Guest Statute's provisions.

Guest StatutePassenger for HireMotivating InfluenceCar PoolPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentNegligenceJury InstructionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Henson

The case involves L. T. Henson and Mrs. Beryl Henson (appellees) suing T. W. Henry and Mrs. Mary Murphy Henry (appellants) for damages sustained by Mrs. Beryl Henson in an automobile accident. Mrs. Henson was riding in Mrs. Henry's car while traveling to a Women's Missionary Society conference, where both were delegates. The core legal issue is whether Mrs. Henson was a 'guest' under Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. Article 6701b, the Texas 'guest statute,' which limits liability for non-paying guests unless gross negligence is proven. The jury initially found Mrs. Henson was not a guest, leading to a judgment for appellees. Appellants contended that Mrs. Henson was a guest, and the court analyzed whether the mutual benefit of the trip removed her from 'guest' status. The court ultimately found that the benefits were not tangible enough to change her status, ruling that Mrs. Henson was indeed a guest. Therefore, the lower court's judgment for the appellees was reversed, and judgment was rendered for the appellants.

Automobile AccidentGuest StatuteVernon’s Ann.Civ.St. Article 6701bNegligenceGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligenceContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskJoint EnterpriseMutual Benefit
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. State

This opinion, authored by Chief Justice Harbison, concurs that disability for a scheduled injury is based on loss of use rather than earning capacity. However, it dissents on the grounds that the workers' compensation claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employee sustained a wrist fracture, received medical treatment, and wore a cast for weeks, yet waited twenty years to file a claim for permanent disability. The Chief Justice argues that the employee knew or should have known of a work-related injury and disability, even without precise information, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations should apply from the date of injury or last medical payment. The opinion references Taylor v. Clayton Mobile Homes, Inc. and Jones v. Home Indemnity Co. to support the argument against extending the statute of limitations for such a long period, especially when the injury was apparent from the beginning.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsScheduled InjuryPermanent DisabilityWrist FractureLatent InjuryKnowledge of InjuryMedical ExpensesTimeliness of ClaimJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1992

Mark v. Eshkar

This case involves a plaintiff, owner of Manhattan premises, and defendants Eshkar and Jules Schapiro, whose adjacent building shared a party wall. Following rehabilitation work on Schapiro's building in 1984, minor damage to the party wall occurred. In 1989, more significant structural cracks appeared, attributed to allegedly faulty foundation work supervised by Eshkar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claim against Eshkar, deeming it barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which it held commenced in 1985 upon the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the cause of action accrued in 1989 when the structural cracks became visible, aligning with the principle that the statute of limitations for damages resulting from loss of lateral support begins when such damages are sustained and become apparent.

Statute of LimitationsNegligenceReal PropertyParty WallConstruction DefectsAccrual of Cause of ActionLatent DefectsStructural DamageNew York LawAppellate Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. Nos. 2-80-127 and 2-80-129 (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1985

Howard Gault Co. v. Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc.

This case involves two consolidated actions. No. 2-80-127 concerns civil rights counterclaims brought by Jesus Moya against seventeen growers and state officials following the issuance of an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) that curtailed union organizing activities of the Texas Farm Workers Union (TFWU) in Deaf Smith County, Texas. Moya alleged deprivation of First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. No. 2-80-129 is a class action, originally filed by TFWU and TRLA, challenging the constitutionality of several Texas picketing statutes. The court found that the growers and state officials acted under color of state law, depriving Moya of his First Amendment rights due to the unconstitutional ex parte TRO procedure and the overly broad minority picketing provisions. Moya was awarded $500 in compensatory damages. The court also declared multiple sections of the Texas picketing statutes (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. arts. 5154d, 5154f, and 5154g) unconstitutional. TRLA was denied standing for the constitutional challenges, but Delia Gamez Prince was granted standing. Claims for recovery against the TRO bond were denied.

Workers' RightsFirst AmendmentPicketingTemporary Restraining OrderConstitutional LawCivil Rights Act of 1871Labor DisputesOverbreadth DoctrineState StatutesJudicial Immunity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ashmead v. Groper

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court (Sullivan County), which dismissed their legal malpractice action against an attorney as barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff had initially retained the defendant attorney in 1981 for a workers' compensation claim, which closed in 1984 after an award for partial disability. In 1995, the plaintiff sued the attorney for negligence regarding the calculation of the average weekly wage. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the plaintiff's argument of continuous representation, stating that a professional's failure to act does not constitute such. The court found that the Statute of Limitations expired, at the latest, six years after the workers' compensation case closed in May 1984.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAttorney NegligenceAppellate ReviewDismissalAffirmationNew York LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Co. v. Burmester

The case involves a personal injury suit filed by Kurt Burmester against Houston Belt & Terminal Railway Company, Danner, and others, where he sustained serious injuries in a car-train collision. The jury awarded Burmester $160,000 in damages. The defendants appealed, citing juror misconduct and arguing that Burmester was a guest passenger. Marina Mercante Nicaragüense, S. A., intervened seeking recovery for medical expenses paid to Burmester. The appellate court overruled the juror misconduct and guest statute arguments. However, it found the jury's damage award to be excessive by $40,000 and conditionally affirmed the judgment if Burmester filed a remittitur of that amount; otherwise, the case would be reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court also denied the intervenor's claim for subrogation.

Personal InjuryCar AccidentTrain AccidentJuror MisconductVoir DireRemittiturExcessive DamagesGuest StatuteMaritime LawSubrogation
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 3,276 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