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. No. 05-20-00835-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

G Force Framing LLC, Kerry Graves, Kerry Graves on Behalf of G Force Framing LLC, and Kerry Graves D/B/A G Force Framing v. MacSouth Forest Products, L.L.C. v. Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC, SC Switchyard, LLC, XL Specially Insurance Company and Travelers Surely and Casually Company

G Force Framing LLC (G Force) and Kerry Graves appealed the trial court's final judgment from Dallas County, Texas, which had dismissed G Force's claims and discharged its mechanic's liens. The trial court ruled based on G Force's prior tax forfeiture and alleged lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that G Force was not a 'terminated entity' under the Texas Business Organizations Code because its tax forfeiture was eventually set aside, thus allowing it to pursue its claims. The appellate court also found the indemnity bonds filed by Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC were insufficient to discharge the mechanic's liens. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Graves's individual claims as they belonged solely to the corporation.

Tax ForfeitureCorporate ReinstatementCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentRule 91a Motion to DismissMechanic's LiensIndemnity BondsStatutory InterpretationTexas Business Organizations CodeTexas Tax Code
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Wade

The plaintiff, Carmina Perez, initiated an action against Ricky L. Wade, the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Drug Task Force, Henry County, Tennessee, and Monte Belew, alleging violations of constitutional amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims against the Task Force as it was deemed a state entity entitled to sovereign immunity. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against Wade and Belew in their official capacities, applying the Ex Parte Young exception to allow prospective injunctive relief, despite some requested relief being retrospective.

Eleventh Amendment Immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983Judgment on the PleadingsState Sovereign ImmunityOfficial Capacity SuitsEx Parte Young DoctrineProspective Injunctive ReliefDrug Task ForceTennessee LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. Tenth Judicial District Drug Task Force

Plaintiff Susan Lamb sued the Tenth Judicial District Drug Task Force (DTF) and Officer David Jones under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (TGTLA), alleging violations of her constitutional rights and state law claims of malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the DTF is a state agency not subject to § 1983 and Officer Jones is immune as a state employee. The court found it could not determine the DTF's status as a state or local entity, or Officer Jones's state employee status, without reviewing extrinsic materials. Consequently, the court denied the motion to dismiss, reserving these determinations for later stages of the litigation.

Motion to Dismiss42 U.S.C. § 1983State Agency StatusEleventh Amendment ImmunityGovernmental Tort Liability ActMalicious ProsecutionFalse ImprisonmentDrug Task ForceState Employee ImmunityTennessee Law
References
34
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00213
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Colamaio-Kohl v. Task Essential Corp.

Claimant Ernest Colamaio-Kohl sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an accidental injury during his employment as a skin care specialist. The Workers' Compensation Board determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Colamaio-Kohl and Task Essential Corp., and awarded benefits. Task Essential Corp. appealed, contesting the employer-employee relationship, arguing Colamaio-Kohl was a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and asserting improper notice of injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. The court concluded that Task Essential Corp. exercised sufficient control over Colamaio-Kohl, he was not a special employee of Bloomingdale's, and late notice was excusable due to Task Essential Corp.'s actual knowledge of the accident.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentLate NoticeSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentSkin Care SpecialistRetail Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hinkle v. Delavan Industries, Inc.

Danny Ray Hinkle, an employee of Commercial Carriers, Inc. (CCI), was injured by a trailer manufactured by his employer and sought to recover in tort against CCI's corporate parents and siblings, including Ryder Services Corporation and Ryder System, Inc. Hinkle alleged that these defendants breached a duty to ensure the safe manufacturing of the trailer, despite his sole remedy against CCI being worker's compensation. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they had not undertaken an independent duty to prevent injuries to their subsidiary's employees. The court examined whether Ryder System, Inc. assumed such a duty through its Herron Task Force. Ultimately, the court found no evidence that Ryder System, Inc. undertook a duty to render services or increased the risk of harm, concluding that the task force's purpose was primarily profit-related and not intended to benefit the subsidiaries directly. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding no genuine issue of material fact existed for their liability.

Summary JudgmentCorporate LiabilityParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary EmployeesWorker's Compensation ExclusivityDesign DefectAssumption of DutyHerron Task ForceSafety ProtocolsTort Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2003

Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Ass'n v. United States Air Force

Plaintiffs, including the Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association and individual landowners, challenged the United States Air Force's Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (RBTI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Noise Control Act (NCA). They alleged failures in adequately considering environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, responding to public comments, and implementing mitigation measures. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Air Force had taken a 'hard look' at environmental consequences, sufficiently addressed public concerns, and complied with NEPA's procedural requirements regarding alternatives, mitigation, and FAA involvement. The Court found the agency's decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Environmental LawNEPANoise Control ActSummary JudgmentAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewAir Force TrainingEnvironmental Impact StatementRecord of DecisionAirspace Management
References
73
Case No. 03-15-00416-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2015

Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.

AmeriPro Funding, Inc. is a residential mortgage lender. Appellants Michael H. Nasserfar, Michael E. Task, and Tycord R. Gosnay, former employees, are accused of secretly transmitting confidential records to competitor Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. before resigning, and continuing to possess and use these records. This brief argues for the affirmance of a temporary injunction granted by the district court against the appellants for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and other torts. The injunction aims to prevent further use of confidential information and solicitation of specific customers, with evidence supporting imminent and irreparable harm to AmeriPro. The brief also addresses arguments regarding the temporary injunction's compliance with Rule 683, the definition of 'customers', and the return of confidential information.

Confidential Information MisappropriationTrade Secret TheftBreach of Fiduciary DutyNon-Solicitation ViolationsTemporary Injunction AppealEmployee PoachingUnfair CompetitionCustomer List ProtectionFinancial Data ProtectionContract Interference
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2007

Cohen v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Edward Cohen, an electrical subcontractor, was injured while installing metal racks in a ceiling at defendant Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, where HRH Construction was the construction manager. He fell from a six-foot A-frame ladder because a metal rod protruded, blocking the first rung and forcing him to step directly from the second rung to the floor, where his left foot got caught, twisting his knee. The court found that the provided ladder, though not inherently defective, was inadequate for the specific task location as it did not allow for safe descent, violating Labor Law § 240 (1). The court held that defendants had an obligation to provide a safety device appropriate to the task, and the provided ladder was insufficient to permit safe performance of the elevated task at that particular part of the work site. The motion court's denial of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was overturned, and their cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. The dismissal of the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLadder SafetyElevation RiskAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstruction SiteSafety DevicesNegligenceProximate CauseLabor Law 240(1)
References
10
Case No. ADJ13228350
Regular
Jul 14, 2025

Paul Janikowski vs. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Applicant Paul Janikowski, a production associate at Tesla Motors, Inc., suffered severe leg and ankle injuries in 2019 due to a machine malfunction involving a conveyor and skids. He alleged serious and willful misconduct by Tesla, arguing that the company failed to provide adequate safety protocols and reduced the job from a two-person task to a one-person task, forcing him to cross an energized conveyor. Despite defendant's arguments that safety protocols were in place and the operation met industry standards, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found that the applicant met his burden of proof. The Appeals Board denied Tesla's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJCal OSHAMercer-FraserJohns-ManvilleHawaiian PineappleDowden
References
6
Case No. 12-14-00155-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams and Sabra Curry v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc.

There are two glaring infirmities in the argument presented by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) in its brief to this Court. First, Lowe’s misunderstands or misapplies the standard of review for a directed verdict, arguing how evidence 'weighs' in its favor, while the Court's task is to determine if there is at least a scintilla of evidence to support the Cont’l Coffee factors. Second, Lowe's fails to distinguish Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, a highly relevant case where the court found sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive when a company deviated from its policies by forcing an employee with workers' compensation claims to work against restrictions or be fired, and failing to provide written notice of leave expiration. The appellants argue that similar deviations and negative attitudes from Lowe's management, including forcing employees to work against light duty restrictions and placing them on unauthorized 'personal leave' without their knowledge, demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the stated reason for termination was a false pretext. Appellants assert that the directed verdict was error and the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a full trial.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationDirected VerdictStandard of ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceCont'l Coffee FactorsLight DutyLeave of Absence PolicyPretextTexas Law
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 746 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