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
Aug 20, 1981

Claim of Burton v. ITT Continental Baking Co.

The claimant, a tractor-trailer driver for ITT Continental Baking Company, was injured and subsequently settled a third-party action without the explicit consent of the compensation carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant forfeited further benefits due to this lack of consent, reversing an earlier hearing officer's decision. The claimant appealed, arguing that consent should be implied because Liberty Mutual also served as the liability insurer for the claimant in a separate personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the specific facts did not establish implied consent, as there was no evidence of dual representation of the claimant by Liberty Mutual or its attorneys in both actions, nor knowledge of the settlement negotiations.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party SettlementCarrier ConsentLien WaiverForfeiture of BenefitsImplied ConsentDual RepresentationAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityMotor Vehicle Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arch Hospitality, Inc.

The debtors, Arch Hospitality, Inc. and its sole stockholder Rashmikant S. Patel, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sought court authority to sell a hotel asset free and clear of liens under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f). They argued that certain junior liens held by Buffalo Realty Corp. and the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board were wholly unsecured under 11 U.S.C. § 506 and that these creditors had impliedly consented to the sale by not responding to the motion. Chief U.S.B.J. Bucki denied the motion to sell, ruling that silence does not constitute implied consent as required by 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)(2). The court also denied as moot the motion to declare certain claims wholly unsecured, stating that such a determination would not circumvent the need for creditor consent.

BankruptcyChapter 11Sale of assetsFree and clear of liensImplied consentSecured claimsUnsecured claimsLien avoidanceReal property saleHotel property
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

Texas Ass'n of Counties County Government Risk Management Pool v. Matagorda County

In this case, the Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the Texas Association of Counties County Government Risk Management Pool (TAC), acting as an insurer, could obtain reimbursement from Matagorda County for a settlement paid in a prior liability claim. TAC had settled the Coseboon lawsuit for $300,000 under a reservation of rights, asserting the claim was excluded from coverage, and subsequently sought reimbursement through a declaratory judgment action. While the trial court initially favored TAC, the court of appeals reversed, finding no implied-in-fact or implied-in-law right to reimbursement. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, holding that the County's silence did not constitute implied consent to reimburse, nor did equitable theories like subrogation, quantum meruit, or unjust enrichment apply. The Court concluded that an insurer must obtain the insured's clear and unequivocal consent to both the settlement and the right to seek reimbursement when coverage is disputed.

Insurance LawReimbursementReservation of RightsSettlement AgreementCoverage DisputeEquitable SubrogationImplied ContractUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitInsurer-Insured Relationship
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. F. v. Spence Chapin Agency

A 16-year-old father, who previously consented to the adoption of his out-of-wedlock infant, sought custody, attempting to revoke his consent. The birth mother had also surrendered the child to Spence Chapin Services for Families and Children, who placed the baby with preadoptive parents. The court examined the validity of the minor father's consent, whether it was statutorily or constitutionally required, and his standing to petition for custody. It found the father's consent invalid due to the agency's insufficient guidance for a minor, but determined his consent was not legally required under Domestic Relations Law § 111 (1) (e) as he did not meet the criteria for demonstrating paternal interest. Applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the court ultimately denied the father's custody petition, concluding the preadoptive parents were better suited.

Adoption LawChild CustodyMinor Parents' RightsParental ConsentBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawUnmarried FathersRevocation of ConsentAdoption AgenciesLegal Standing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1981

Claim of Brewster v. U. S. Suzuki Motor Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding implied consent to a third-party settlement. The central issue was whether there was substantial evidence to demonstrate that the compensation carrier implicitly agreed to the claimant's third-party action settlement. The court found that the carrier had received notice of the proposed settlement, including payment for its existing lien, and subsequently executed a general release. Based on these facts, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support a finding of implied consent. Consequently, the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionImplied ConsentSettlement AgreementInsurance CarrierSubstantial EvidenceAppeal DecisionGeneral ReleaseLien PaymentNotice of Settlement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texstar North America, Inc. v. Ladd Petroleum Corp.

Texstar North America, Inc. sued Ladd Petroleum Corporation for alleged breach of a joint operating agreement concerning the Zalman No. 1 well. Texstar sought injunctions, a declaratory judgment, and damages, arguing Ladd's refusal to consent to a fracture stimulation procedure violated implied duties of mutual cooperation and good faith. Ladd filed a counterclaim, asserting the agreement's terms allowed it to withhold consent as the well was producing in paying quantities. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ladd on Texstar's claims and later for Texstar on Ladd's counterclaim regarding future proposals and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the joint operating agreement unambiguous, rejecting implied duties, and upholding the discretion in denying attorney's fees for the counterclaim.

Joint Operating AgreementBreach of ContractOil and Gas LawSummary JudgmentImplied DutyGood Faith and Fair DealingMutual CooperationNon-Consent OperationsRework ProcedureDeclaratory Judgment Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2013

Claim of Zaldivar v. SNS Organization

The claimant suffered a back and leg injury during employment, leading to a workers' compensation claim and a third-party action. The workers' compensation claim was established. The claimant sought the carrier's consent to settle the third-party claim. The carrier initially consented with conditions, but later questioned the settlement terms upon learning it was structured, requesting an investigation. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge directed the claimant to provide proof of compliance with consent conditions. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed and continued the case for further record development. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues.

Third-Party SettlementCarrier ConsentInterlocutory AppealRecord DevelopmentAppellate ProcedureStructured SettlementDismissed AppealProcedural RulingConditions for ConsentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle S. Silliman v. City of Memphis

This case concerns an appeal by the City of Memphis regarding the trial court's decision to set aside a 2006 consent order. The consent order allowed the annexation of the Southwind Annexation Area, effective December 31, 2013. Property owners sought to set aside this order, citing a new annexation moratorium (Tenn. Code Ann. § 6-51-122) passed in May 2013. The trial court sided with the property owners, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court clarified that the moratorium applies to the 'operative date' of the annexation ordinance, which for the City's ordinance was 2008, not the 'effective date' of the annexation. Therefore, the annexation was not prohibited by the moratorium, and the original consent order is reinstated.

Annexation LawConsent OrdersStatutory InterpretationRule 60.02 ReliefMootnessAbuse of Discretion StandardMunicipal BoundariesQuo Warranto ActionsLegislative AuthorityOperative Date vs Effective Date
References
108
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1982

Claim of Moore v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Authority

This case involves an appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a carrier's conduct regarding a claimant's third-party action settlement. The core issue was whether the board's finding that the carrier was estopped from raising lack of consent to the settlement as a defense for future compensation awards was supported by substantial evidence. The record showed that the claimant's attorney sought the carrier's consent multiple times but was advised it was unnecessary. The board concluded that the carrier's prior denials of the necessity for consent legally prevented them from later asserting its absence as a defense. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelThird-Party ActionSettlement ConsentCarrier ConductFuture AwardsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimant RightsDefense Waiver
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 894 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