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

State v. City of Galveston

Justice Terry Jennings dissents from the denial of en banc consideration, arguing that the panel's decision to not shield municipalities from the State's tort claims creates a state sovereignty exception to governmental immunity without legislative approval. This, he contends, subjects local governmental units to unlimited tort liability and undermines the Texas Legislature's sole authority to waive sovereign immunity, as explicitly defined in the Texas Tort Claims Act. Justice Jennings highlights that the Legislature has precisely outlined the circumstances under which municipalities are liable for governmental functions and that any expansion of this liability should be a legislative, not judicial, prerogative. He also criticizes the majority's misapplication of the *Eagle Pass* precedent.

Governmental ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityTort Claims ActState SovereigntyLegislative PrerogativeJudicial ActivismEn Banc ConsiderationDissenting OpinionTexas LawLocal Government
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Family & Protective Services v. Atwood

This dissenting opinion argues against the denial of en banc consideration in a case concerning the Texas Tort Claims Act. The underlying case involves the death of a child, Jonathan Atwood, in a licensed foster home operated by the Roe family. The Atwoods are suing the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), alleging that DFPS's sovereign immunity should be waived due to the use of tangible property or a premises defect in the foster home. The dissenting judge contends that foster parents, like the Roes, should be considered employees of DFPS, and that DFPS maintained sufficient control over the foster home premises to waive immunity, thereby disagreeing with the panel's decision to grant DFPS's plea to the jurisdiction and advocating for a remand for further proceedings.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign Immunity WaiverFoster Home LiabilityChild DrowningPremises DefectTangible Property UseGovernment Employee DefinitionAppellate ReviewEn Banc ReviewPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Brookshire Bros., Inc.

Mark Franks appeals a summary judgment in his personal injury action against his employer, Brookshire Brothers, Inc., a non-subscriber to worker's compensation insurance. Franks argues a release he signed is invalid due to its inapplicability to his specific injuries, lack of consideration, and Brookshire's alleged breach by non-payment of recited consideration. The court finds no material fact issue regarding the release's reference to his claims. However, it reverses and remands for trial, holding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the release was supported by consideration, specifically the non-payment of ten dollars and the insufficiency of past benefits or return to work as consideration.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentRelease AgreementConsiderationContract BreachEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberWorkers' CompensationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westbury Medical Care, P.C. v. Lumbermans Mutual Insurance

The plaintiff, a health service provider, sought payment for medical services rendered to assignor Elaine McKeithan after an automobile accident, from the defendant, Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Company. The defendant denied the claim citing non-compliance with fee schedules and concurrent care. The defendant moved for a protective order to prevent the plaintiff from accessing its entire no-fault file, arguing that it contained protected health information under HIPAA. The court partially granted the defendant's motion, ruling that the plaintiff could only access documents specifically related to the alleged concurrent treatment, not the entire file, due to HIPAA's patient privacy regulations and the absence of a valid HIPAA authorization from the claimant. The court emphasized the need to balance full disclosure under CPLR with HIPAA's privacy protections.

No-fault InsuranceHIPAA ComplianceProtective OrderDiscovery DisputesMedical Records DisclosureConcurrent CarePatient PrivacyCPLR Article 31Health Service ProviderInsurance Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Barden (In Re Skalski)

This adversary proceeding, initiated by a Chapter 7 Trustee, involved the Debtor, Theresa H. Skalski, who transferred her home in Depew, New York, to her daughter, Christine A. Barden, and son-in-law in 1995. The Debtor took a $35,000 note for the property, which she later forgave. The Trustee sought to void this transfer under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, arguing it was a fraudulent transfer made without fair consideration while the Debtor was insolvent. The Defendants contended that the loan forgiveness constituted consideration for a promise of future support, and they claimed offsets for support provided and property maintenance. The court, citing precedent like Kotowski, ruled that a promise of future support is not fair consideration and rejected the Defendants' claims for offsets related to property maintenance, as they owned the property and collected rent from the Debtor. Finding the Debtor insolvent at the time of the transfer and the absence of fair consideration, the court granted summary judgment to the Trustee for $35,000 plus costs.

Fraudulent TransferBankruptcyInsolvencyFair ConsiderationFuture Support PromiseSummary JudgmentDebtor-Creditor LawU.S. Bankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFamily Transfers
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Case No. E2014-01775-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Jimmy L. Hensley v. Cocke Farmers Cooperative

Jimmy L. Hensley sued his former employer, Cocke Farmer’s Cooperative, to enforce a severance agreement. The agreement provided for severance pay if Hensley's employment was terminated without cause. The trial court granted Hensley's motion for summary judgment, finding the agreement valid, enforceable, and supported by adequate consideration, and awarded him severance benefits. The Cooperative appealed, arguing the contract was vague, lacked consideration, and the severance constituted an unenforceable penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the agreement was clear, continuing employment was sufficient consideration, and the severance benefits were not liquidated damages or a penalty, thus upholding the award for Hensley.

Severance AgreementAt-Will EmploymentContract EnforceabilitySummary JudgmentAdequate ConsiderationLiquidated DamagesMitigation of DamagesCorporate GovernanceBoard of DirectorsEmployment Contracts
References
36
Case No. 03-22-00524-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2024

City of McAllen, City of San Antonio, City of Dallas, City of Austin, City of El Paso, City of Plano, City of Garland, City of Irving, City of Amarillo, City of Grand Prairie, City of Brownsville, City of McKinney, City of Waco, City of College Station, City of Sugar Land, City of Mission, City of Pharr, Town of Flower Mound, City of Rowlett, City of Bedford, City of San Marcos// the State of Texas v. the State of Texas// City of McAllen, City of San Antonio, City of Dallas, City of Austin, City of El Paso, City of Plano, City of Garland, City of Irving, City of Amarillo, City of Grand Prairie, City of Brownsville, City of McKinney, City of Waco, City of College Station, City of Sugar Land, City of Mission, City of Pharr, Town of Flower Mound, City of Rowlett, City of Bedford, City of San Marcos

This case involves an appeal regarding the constitutionality of Texas Senate Bills 1004 and 1152, which affect fees municipalities can charge utility providers for public rights-of-way. The McAllen Plaintiffs, a group of 58 Texas cities, and the City of Houston (collectively, the Cities) challenged these statutes, arguing they violate the Texas Constitution's gift clauses by granting public value without sufficient consideration. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the Cities, declaring SB 1152 unconstitutional, and granted in part the State's motion regarding SB 1004. The appellate court found a material fact question regarding the adequacy of consideration for SB 1004's $250 fee limit, reversing and remanding that portion. For SB 1152, which exempted certain providers from one fee if they paid another, the court affirmed its unconstitutionality, ruling that it constitutes an unconstitutional gratuity as it eliminates consideration for one type of access.

Texas Court of AppealsDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawGift ClausePublic Rights-of-WayUtility FeesTelecommunicationsCable ServicesWireless Services
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03444
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2020

Schoch v. Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C.

Kim E. Schoch, a certified nurse midwife, was employed by Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. and covered by a professional liability insurance policy from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC), with the employer paying all premiums. Following MLMIC's conversion to a stock insurance company, a cash consideration was to be distributed to eligible policyholders. Schoch, as the named insured, was deemed the policyholder, but Lake Champlain OB-GYN objected, claiming entitlement due to its premium payments, a claim upheld by the Supreme Court based on unjust enrichment. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Schoch, as the policyholder, was legally entitled to the consideration per statute and MLMIC's conversion plan. The court found that the demutualization proceeds were an unexpected windfall not explicitly covered by the employment agreement, and that Lake Champlain OB-GYN's unjust enrichment claim failed because Schoch's entitlement was based on law, not mistake or fraudulent conduct. Consequently, Schoch was declared solely entitled to the $74,747.03 cash consideration.

DemutualizationInsurance PolicyPolicyholder RightsUnjust EnrichmentProfessional LiabilityEmployment BenefitsAppellate DivisionContractual InterpretationCash ConsiderationMutual to Stock Conversion
References
16
Case No. 534802
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mario Ayars

Claimant Mario Ayars sustained a right knee injury in January 2017, leading to a workers' compensation claim where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found a 66.67% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg. Upon review, the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) reduced the SLU to 20%, asserting that the physicians' opinions were inconsistent with impairment guidelines and based on inapplicable special considerations. On appeal, the Appellate Division found the Board's decision could not be sustained because its assessment of the medical evidence, specifically concerning Dr. Thomas DiBenedetto's independent medical examination (IME) report, was inaccurate. The Board erroneously claimed DiBenedetto found 110 degrees of flexion and applied special considerations, whereas his report documented 90 degrees of flexion and no such considerations. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing the Board to accurately re-assess the medical evidence and determine anew the claim's amenability to classification or SLU, and the resulting degree of disability.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Knee InjuryMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemittalImpairment GuidelinesConflicting Medical OpinionsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Factual Questions
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 577 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