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

Cummins v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.

Earl D. Cummins appealed an instructed verdict favoring Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, Inc., and Sherman’s Power Tongs, Inc. Cummins, a derrickman, was injured when a stabbing board broke while he was working. He sued the appellees, alleging negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Cummins had voluntarily encountered a known danger, thus applying the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence to support the negligence claims against Sherman’s Power Tongs, Inc.

Instructed VerdictNegligenceVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumption of RiskOilfield InjuryDerrickmanIndependent ContractorsWorkers' CompensationTexas LawPremises Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newman v. Utica National Insurance Co. of Texas

Debra Sue Newman appealed an instructed verdict granted in favor of Utica National Insurance Company of Texas in her workers’ compensation case, stemming from an injury sustained on September 29, 1988, while employed by Sir Speedy Printing. The core issue on appeal was Newman’s failure to establish her average weekly wage according to former Texas workers’ compensation law, which required proving either 210 days of work, a comparable employee's wage, or a just and fair wage. The trial court had granted an instructed verdict for Utica, resulting in a take-nothing judgment against Newman. Newman challenged this, arguing that Utica's denial of a request for admission should have negated the need for further evidence on comparable employees. However, the appellate court affirmed, holding that a denial of an admission request is not competent evidence and Newman failed to meet her burden to prove the non-existence of comparable employees from any employer, thus upholding the instructed verdict.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageInstructed VerdictBurden of ProofTexas LawRequest for AdmissionsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewEmployment InjuryInsurance Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bugge v. Sweet

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Otsego County which set aside a jury verdict in his favor for $10,000 and directed a verdict for the defendant. The case stemmed from a 1975 motor vehicle accident, with the central legal question being whether the plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 671(4) at the time. The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the plaintiff's doctor. The court found the doctor's testimony regarding the permanency and causal link of the injury to the accident to be burdened with doubt, speculation, and inconsistency. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to establish the "serious injury" threshold required for recovery. Therefore, the order and judgment in favor of the defendant were affirmed.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSpinal FusionLumbo-sacral StrainCausationPermanencyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt v. McCann

Mack McCann filed an action against George R. Holt, Jr., for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a rear-end automobile collision. The defendant appealed a $35,000 verdict, alleging errors by the trial court regarding the amendment of the declaration, the use of the defendant's discovery deposition, jury instructions on sleepiness and aggravation of a pre-existing condition, and the excessiveness of the verdict. The appellate court, presided over by McAMIS, P.J., affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in allowing the amendment or the use of the deposition, and upholding the jury instructions as correct statements of law. The court also concluded that the verdict amount was not manifestly unjust, considering the plaintiff's latent arthritis was aggravated by the trauma, leading to permanent pain and reduced earning capacity.

Personal injuryAutomobile accidentRear-end collisionAggravated pre-existing conditionArthritisSpinal injuryPermanent disabilityJury verdictAppellate reviewDiscretion of court
References
8
Case No. E2013-02132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2014

Cleveland Custom Stone v. Acuity Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a Chancery Court decision concerning an insurance dispute. Plaintiffs, Cleveland Custom Stone, Inc. and Steve's Stone Works, sued Acuity Mutual Insurance Company after it refused to pay insurance proceeds following a fire that destroyed their building. They alleged negligence, breach of contract, bad faith refusal to pay, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. A jury awarded compensatory damages and found a TCPA violation, but no punitive damages. The trial court affirmed the verdict, but did not treble the damages. Acuity appealed several issues, including the denial of summary judgment, directed verdict, and the jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient material evidence to support the jury's verdict and no error in the jury instructions or the denial of treble damages.

Insurance CoverageBreach of ContractNegligenceBad Faith Refusal to PayTennessee Consumer Protection ActAgency AgreementCertificate of InsuranceFire LossJury VerdictDirected Verdict
References
21
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Albee

Plaintiff Gary D. Carpenter, a blacktop paver, sustained serious injuries when he was struck and dragged by a dump truck driven by defendant Bruce W. Albee while working on Interstate Route 88. Carpenter and his wife commenced a personal injury action against Albee and his employer. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs' motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial were denied. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that there was conflicting evidence that the jury could fairly interpret in the defendant's favor, and affirmed the lower court's judgment and order.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceAutomobile AccidentWorkplace AccidentConflicting TestimonyCredibility IssuesAffirmed Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

La Fountaine v. Franzese

This personal injury action concerns a plaintiff (a minor) who suffered lead poisoning between April 1992 and September 1993 while living in an apartment owned and managed by the defendants. Routine medical examinations revealed elevated blood lead levels, prompting the Albany County Department of Health to order lead abatement procedures, which the defendants performed inadequately. Experts testified that the lead poisoning caused permanent disorders, including ADHD, cognitive, and reading disorders, which were not capable of practical apportionment between pre-notice and post-notice exposure periods. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future lost earnings, assigning 70% liability to the defendants. Defendants appealed the judgment and the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, arguing lack of liability before notice, erroneous jury instructions, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment and order, finding the defendants' arguments without merit and upholding the jury's findings on non-apportionment of injuries and the reasonableness of the damage awards.

Lead poisoningLandlord liabilityPersonal injury damagesNon-apportionment of injuriesADHDCognitive disordersEnvironmental lead hazardInadequate abatementExpert medical testimonyJury verdict review
References
12
Case No. 07-09-0392-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Betty Domingo v. Cindy Skidmore, Donna Walker, Estella Barron, Brenda Mitchell, Gina Schultz and Sharla Pierce, and LGroup, a Texas General Partnership

Betty Domingo appealed the trial court's judgment, which denied her breach of contract claim against Cindy Skidmore, Donna Walker, Estella Barron, Brenda Mitchell, Gina Schultz, Sharla Pierce, and LGroup. Domingo argued errors in jury instructions and the denial of directed verdicts regarding partnership existence, damages, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the jury instruction refusal as the 'essential element' of the contract was a fact issue. The court also held that a partnership was not established as a matter of law, precluding directed verdicts on damages and attorney's fees.

breach of contractlottery pooloral agreementpartnership lawjury instructionsdirected verdictcontract damagesattorney's feesappellate reviewTexas Business Organizations Code
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,061 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