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

Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

Jacqueline Head contracted with Affordable Inspections for a home inspection. She alleged that an unsupervised apprentice performed the inspection, failing to disclose significant water damage and structural defects. Head sued Affordable and John Fox (the inspector) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, unconscionability, and breach of express warranty, as well as for breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Affordable and Fox, applying the professional services exemption to DTPA claims and limiting liability for contract and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, and upheld the limitation of liability for breach of contract and negligence. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Head's DTPA claim for breach of express warranty, finding a fact issue regarding the promise of a licensed inspector performing the inspection. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to Affordable and Fox was also reversed and remanded.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionBreach of ContractNegligenceLimitation of LiabilityExpress WarrantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Estate InspectionHome Inspector
References
50
Case No. 2-03-152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Jacqueline C. Head, Individually and as Successor Trustee Under the FTW Living Trust v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. F/K/A Affordable Inspections, Inc. and John Fox

Jacqueline Head appealed a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. and John Fox. Head argued that her DTPA claims were wrongly barred by a professional services exemption, and a limitation of liability clause should not apply to her breach of contract and negligence claims. The Court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Head's DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, along with her negligence and breach of contract claims. However, the Court reversed the summary judgment concerning Head's claim for breach of express warranty under the DTPA and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding these specific issues to the trial court for further proceedings.

Real Estate InspectionSummary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionLimitation of LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligenceExpress WarrantyUnconscionabilityAttorneys' Fees
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2011

Colortone Camera, Inc. v. New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board

Colortone Camera, Inc. challenged the reclassification of its employees from Workers' Compensation Classification Code 8017 to 8018, which resulted in significantly increased insurance rates. The company's appeal to the Superintendent of Insurance, affirming the New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board's determination, was reviewed in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the Superintendent's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence that Colortone's business was primarily wholesale. Additionally, Colortone sought a declaratory judgment that portions of the Workers Compensation & Employers Liability Insurance Manual were unconstitutional for vagueness. This aspect of the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance and further proceedings, as it was not properly before the appellate court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance RatesBusiness ReclassificationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2015-05-0415
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2016

Leas, Anthony v. Opus Inspection, Inc., et al.

The employee, Anthony Leas, alleged a left foot and ankle injury sustained while working as an inspector for Opus Inspection, Inc. The employer denied the claim after the authorized treating physician, Dr. Joseph Wieck, opined that the injuries were not primarily work-related. Leas sought expedited benefits, but the trial court denied them, finding no additional information was needed. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Leas failed to present medical evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness given to the authorized physician's opinion. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee Injury ClaimFoot and Ankle InjuryWork-Related Injury CausationMedical OpinionExpedited HearingBenefits DenialTrial Court AffirmationRemandPro Se Appellant
References
1
Case No. Cause No. 87-3451
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. Cooper

The Relator, American Home Assurance Company, sought mandamus relief from a pretrial discovery order compelling production of an adjuster's investigation file. The underlying case involved workers’ compensation claims filed by Nancy Ann Labbe Walker for her disability and her deceased husband's death benefits. A key dispute centered on the employment status of the Walkers and the responsible compensation carriers: Argonaut Midwest Insurance Company or American Home Assurance Company (Relator). The Relator claimed privilege over the adjuster's file, arguing it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The appellate court reviewed whether the trial judge abused discretion by ordering discovery and by not conducting an in camera inspection. The court found no abuse of discretion, concluding that the trial court's decision was within its broad discretionary powers and that an in camera inspection was not strictly necessary given the Relator's general claim of privilege. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeLitigation PrivilegeWorkers' CompensationInsurance ClaimEmployer LiabilityBad Faith LitigationTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewIn Camera Inspection
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1999

Sanzone v. National Elevator Inspection Service, Inc.

This appellate court modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning summary judgment motions. The initial order had granted summary judgment to National Elevator Inspection Service (NEIS) but denied it for Millar Elevator Industries (Millar). The appellate court determined that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to NEIS, as there was a question of fact regarding whether NEIS assumed a tort duty by conducting a City-mandated elevator safety inspection, potentially breaching it through negligence and causing plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Millar, citing unresolved questions of fact about Millar's role in the elevator's maintenance and repair at the time of the accident. Consequently, the order was modified to deny NEIS's motion and otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentElevator SafetyNegligent InspectionDuty of CareTort LiabilityForeseeable HarmInsurance UnderwritingWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewQuestions of Fact
References
5
Case No. 01-18-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

McDonald Oilfield Operations, LLC v. 3B Inspection, LLC Robert Beall, Chris Myrand, Kyle Grant, Patrick Bage and Dylan Rogge

This case involves a dispute between McDonald Oilfield Operations, LLC (Appellant) and 3B Inspection, LLC, along with its individual employees (Appellees). The Appellees filed suit alleging business disparagement, defamation, and tortious interference with a contract, based on McDonald Oilfield's alleged false statements and the suspension of Operator Qualifications for Appellees' employees. McDonald Oilfield sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing their communications related to public concern regarding oil and gas pipeline safety. The trial court denied the dismissal motion. The appellate court reversed, concluding that McDonald Oilfield's actions fell under the TCPA's free speech protections and that 3B Inspection failed to provide clear and specific evidence for their claims, particularly regarding damages for defamation and business disparagement, and specific contract breach for tortious interference. The court also affirmed that McDonald Oilfield's TCPA motion for dismissal, costs, and attorney's fees survived the Appellees' nonsuit of certain claims, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

TexasCourt of AppealsTCPAAnti-SLAPPDefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceFree SpeechOil and Gas IndustryPipeline Monitoring
References
28
Case No. 2418
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Oil & Gas Co. v. Flores

Enron Oil & Gas Company (EOG) filed an application for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Manuel R. Flores to withdraw a discovery order issued in a lawsuit brought by the Garcias against EOG regarding oil and gas lease royalties. EOG contended the discovery was irrelevant and that the judge abused his discretion by ordering the production of trade secret information without an in camera inspection. The court, however, denied EOG's application. It found that the judge had sufficient expert testimony regarding the sensitive nature of the documents to weigh the need for discovery against preserving secrecy, thus concluding there was no clear abuse of discretion in issuing the protective order without an in camera review.

DiscoveryMandamusTrade SecretsIn Camera InspectionOil and Gas LeaseRoyaltiesAbuse of DiscretionExpert TestimonyTexas Civil ProcedureEvidence Rule 507
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziske v. Luskin

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant sought to discover and inspect records pertaining to the plaintiffs' marriage counseling held by Reverend Dr. Thomas Morrow. The plaintiffs resisted, asserting clergyman-penitent privilege under CPLR 4505, arguing that their marital relationship suffered substantially due to the defendant's alleged malpractice. The court determined that by alleging damage to their marital relationship in their bill of particulars, the plaintiffs implicitly waived their privilege regarding communications with Reverend Morrow solely concerning their marital problems. Consequently, the motion was granted to the extent that the defendants could subpoena Reverend Morrow's records related to marriage counseling for in camera inspection by the court. Alternatively, the plaintiffs could strike references to marital damage from their pleadings.

Clergyman-Penitent PrivilegeCPLR 4505Waiver of PrivilegeMedical MalpracticeMarriage Counseling RecordsIn Camera InspectionDiscovery DisputeBill of ParticularsMarital Relationship DamagesConfidential Communications
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 325 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