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. Misc. Docket No. 07-9197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2007

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether liability insurers engage in the unauthorized practice of law by using staff attorneys to defend insureds. The Court held that insurers may use staff attorneys if the insurer's and insured's interests are congruent, meaning they are aligned in defeating the claim with no conflict of interest. Staff attorneys must fully disclose their affiliation with the insurer to the insured. The Court rejected the argument that insurers' use of staff attorneys inherently creates irreconcilable conflicts or violates various professional conduct rules or statutes, emphasizing a lack of empirical evidence of harm. The judgment of the court of appeals was modified accordingly and, as modified, affirmed.

Unauthorized Practice of LawStaff AttorneysInsurance DefenseAttorney-Client RelationshipConflict of InterestCorporate Practice of LawTexas Supreme CourtLegal EthicsProfessional JudgmentInsurer Duty to Defend
References
32
Case No. W2013-00673-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2014

Practical Ventures, LLC d/b/a AAA Cash Fast v. James Neely, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and Danyelle A. McCullough

This case involves an appeal from an administrative decision regarding unemployment benefits. Practical Ventures, LLC, the employer, appealed the decision by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, which found claimant Danyelle A. McCullough eligible for unemployment benefits based on "constructive discharge." The employer discovered financial irregularities in McCullough's store, suspended her, and requested her keys. McCullough claimed she was planning to quit anyway due to her daughter's illness. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's affirmance, holding that the doctrine of constructive discharge is inapplicable to unemployment compensation proceedings and that McCullough's actions amounted to a voluntary termination of employment without good cause, thus disqualifying her from benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsConstructive DischargeVoluntary TerminationFinancial MisconductEmployee SuspensionAdministrative DecisionJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtLabor LawWorkforce Development
References
25
Case No. 12-10-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2010

in Re: Astro Air, L.P.

Astro Air, L.P. filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court's order that denied its motion to abate and compel arbitration in a case brought by Sharron Hall, a former employee. Hall sued Astro for negligence after being injured on the job. Astro contended Hall had signed an arbitration agreement based on its routine hiring practices, but it could not produce the signed agreement as Hall's personnel file was lost. Hall stated she did not recall signing or being informed of such an agreement. The appellate court found Astro's evidence of routine practice was strong but not conclusive, especially considering Hall's affidavit and the spoliation inference due to the lost personnel file. Consequently, the court denied Astro's petition, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusContract FormationEmployment LawSpoliation of EvidenceRoutine PracticeFederal Arbitration ActAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witherel v. Balling Construction, Inc.

The judgment in this negligence case was unanimously reversed, and a new trial was granted due to a significant error by the trial court. The error involved allowing testimony regarding the alleged drinking habits of workmen at the construction site. The court clarified that habit testimony is only admissible for deliberate and repetitive practices, not general habits, and that co-workers' habits are not probative of the plaintiff's actions and are highly prejudicial. Testimony concerning the plaintiff’s alleged drinking on the day of the accident is permissible solely to support the defense's theory that the fall was not ladder-related, thus not proximately caused by a breach of statutory duty. However, such testimony is inadmissible for alleged violations of Labor Law § 240(1), as contributory negligence is not a defense in such instances.

AppealNew trialLabor LawHabit testimonyAdmissibility of evidenceContributory negligenceStatutory dutyPrejudicial errorConstruction site accidentPersonal injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. 01801-9209-OT-00103
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1994

Petition of Burson

The Attorney General and the State Board of Equalization petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514, which permits non-attorney agents to represent taxpayers before boards of equalization. Petitioners argued this statute sanctioned the unauthorized practice of law, infringing upon the judiciary's inherent authority. After appointing a Special Master who found that such services did not constitute the practice of law and upheld the statute, the Supreme Court adopted the Special Master's factual findings. The Court affirmed the Special Master's legal conclusions as modified, ruling that Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 does not sanction the unauthorized practice of law and is constitutional, thereby upholding the legislative act.

Unauthorized Practice of LawConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJudicial AuthorityLegislative AuthorityProperty TaxationTaxpayer RepresentationAdministrative LawNon-attorney AgentsTennessee Constitution
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartman v. Bell

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract for the sale of a medical practice. A plaintiff physician agreed to sell his practice to defendant physicians, with payment contingent on a percentage of industrial medicine income over three years, including a minimum payment, and further payments for six months thereafter. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the agreement constituted an illegal fee-splitting arrangement under Education Law § 6509-a. The court emphasized that the law would not provide relief to parties involved in illegal arrangements, upholding public policy.

Fee-splittingMedical Practice SaleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractProfessional Medical GroupAppellate DecisionContract Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,554 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