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

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. 04-98-00477-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1999

Bryan Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Bryan Barnhill appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Barnhill suffered a back injury at work and subsequently sued his employer, initially naming Normandy Terrace, Inc. and later Riverside Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Care, Inc., before finally identifying Integrated Health Services, Inc. as his employer. Integrated moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which Barnhill countered with a fraudulent concealment defense. The appellate court found that Barnhill presented genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, given that Integrated was aware of the lawsuit and had business connections with other named defendants. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation DisputeStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment DefenseEmployer IdentificationDiscovery IssuesAppellate ProcedureEquitable EstoppelPleading AmendmentsNon-subscriber Employer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Justice Paul W. Green dissents in a summary judgment appeal concerning Bryan Barnhill's claim against Integrated Health Services, Inc. (IHS). The majority found a fact issue regarding Barnhill's argument that IHS fraudulently concealed its identity, thereby preventing his claim from being time-barred. Justice Green argues that no evidence supports IHS having a duty to disclose its identity or purposefully concealing it, and thus the summary judgment in favor of IHS should have been affirmed. He critiques the majority's reasoning for finding a duty to disclose based on workers' compensation notice requirements and an attorney's knowledge, deeming it an extraordinary holding without precedent. Green concludes that Barnhill failed to demonstrate IHS acted fraudulently or that he lacked means to discover IHS's involvement, asserting the summary judgment should stand.

Summary JudgmentFraudulent ConcealmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelDissenting OpinionPersonal InjuryTexas Civil PracticeAppellate LawEmployer LiabilityDiscovery Issues
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06969 [211 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Integrity Intl., Inc. v. HP, Inc.

Plaintiff, Integrity International, Inc., doing business as Tarrenpoint, sued defendants, HP, Inc., for breach of service agreements dating from 1994 to 2016, primarily concerning defendants' alleged failure to make timely payments and pay late fees. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as time-barred, and also dismissing claims for late fees, finding them not contemplated by the agreements. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal regarding late fees and the timeliness of breach of contract claims. However, the Appellate Division found triable issues of fact concerning whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by diverting clients and workers. The court also held that limitation of liability clauses in the agreements were enforceable, precluding consequential damages but allowing for the recovery of general damages.

Contract DisputeTimely PaymentLate FeesSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsImplied CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingLimitation of LiabilityConsequential DamagesGeneral Damages
References
28
Case No. 2016-01-0091 / 870-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2016

Hackney, Rachel v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., et al.

Rachel Hackney, an employee of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., sustained injuries after a fall at work. She sought initial unauthorized emergency room treatment before receiving authorized medical care and being assigned work restrictions. Hackney later requested temporary partial disability benefits and payment for the unauthorized emergency room bill, asserting the employer's light duty offers were unreasonable. The trial court denied her requests, finding her refusal of light duty was for personal reasons unrelated to the injury and the emergency treatment was not authorized. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Temporary Partial DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentLight Duty RefusalWork RestrictionsMedical AuthorizationEmployer AccommodationWorkers' Compensation AppealsTrial Court AffirmationPersonal Reasons for RefusalCausation of Injury
References
10
Case No. 03-19-00362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy v. University of Texas System

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring The University of Texas System regarding the disclosure of documents under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). The documents pertained to an independent investigation by Kroll Associates, Inc. into UT System's admissions policies. The district court had granted summary judgment, finding the documents protected by attorney-client privilege. However, the Court of Appeals determined that Kroll was not acting as a "lawyer's representative." Thus, the attorney-client privilege did not apply, and the documents, after specific redactions, were ruled to be public information subject to disclosure. The summary judgment of the trial court was reversed and rendered.

Public Information ActAttorney-Client PrivilegeIndependent InvestigationAdmissions PoliciesSummary JudgmentDisclosureWaiverLawyer's RepresentativeEducation RecordsFERPA
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. M2006-00115-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2007

Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. v. Edwin Jason Aldrich

The trial court dismissed an action brought by Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. (a worker's compensation lienholder) against Edwin Jason Aldrich's attorney, Mart Fendley, and his firm. Ryder sought to hold Fendley liable for the disbursement of proceeds from a third-party settlement Aldrich received from Georgia tortfeasors. Ryder, who had settled Aldrich's worker's compensation claim for $181,050.75, argued that Fendley violated fiduciary duties and breached a contract by not protecting Ryder's subrogation lien under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-112. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that Fendley adequately protected Ryder's interests by advising Ryder's counsel to intervene in the Georgia proceedings and that Fendley had no control over the funds disbursed by the Georgia attorney. The court also noted that the primary responsibility to protect the lien was Ryder's, not Fendley's.

Worker's Compensation LienSubrogation RightsAttorney LiabilityInterstate Conflict of LawsGeorgia LawTennessee LawThird-Party SettlementFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. 13-08-00351-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Mitch Burkhart and Christine Burkhart v. Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc. and Concentra Integrated Services, and rgv/nueces Rehabilitation D/B/A Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy

Mitch Burkhart sustained a foot and ankle injury while training for his employer, Verizon Communications. Verizon's workers' compensation claims were administered by Sedgwick Claim Management Services, Inc., who, along with Concentra Integrated Services, arranged a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) for Burkhart with RGV/Nueces Rehabilitation d/b/a Innovative Physical and Occupational Therapy. The Burkharts alleged that the FCE aggravated Mitch's injury, causing permanent damage. They sued Sedgwick, Concentra, and Innovative, claiming negligence, civil conspiracy, assault, fraud, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court dismissed the case against Innovative for an inadequate expert report and granted summary judgment to Sedgwick and Concentra, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mitch's aggravation injury was an 'extension injury' covered by the exclusive remedy provision of the TWCA.

Workers' CompensationFunctional Capacity EvaluationExclusive RemedyAggravation InjurySummary JudgmentMedical Expert ReportHealth Care LiabilityCivil ConspiracyBreach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair DealingTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 1,332 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