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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Integrated Conveyor Systems, Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc.

This case involves claims by Texas Integrated Conveyor Systems, Inc. against its former employees and Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc. for issues including breach of non-compete agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and tortious interference. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment rulings and discovery sanctions. It concluded that Texas Integrated was denied due process regarding certain no-evidence summary judgments and that the trial court erred in granting most traditional summary judgments against Texas Integrated. The court also found the discovery sanctions imposed were an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, reversed and vacated it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentMotion for RehearingDue ProcessDiscovery SanctionsNon-compete AgreementTrade SecretsFraudConversionTortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
58
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
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. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2023

Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D. (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)

This is a dissenting opinion regarding an interlocutory appeal that centers on the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 and its impact on the collateral source rule in health care liability actions. The dissenting judge argues that this statute abrogates the collateral source rule, asserting that recoverable damages should be limited to the actual economic losses suffered, specifically the amounts actually paid by plaintiffs or their insurance, rather than the full, undiscounted medical bills. The opinion emphasizes that the statutory language, particularly "actual economic losses suffered" and "paid or payable," clearly supports this interpretation. Furthermore, it references legislative intent behind the Medical Malpractice Act, which aimed to control healthcare costs, as a rationale for a strict construction of the statute.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationHealth Care Liability ActActual Economic LossesDamagesInsurance LawPretrial OrdersTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
27
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1999

Longo v. Metro-North Commuter RailRoad

A plaintiff, a Metro-North employee with flagging duties on a construction site managed by Yonkers Contracting Company, sustained injuries after falling through a hole. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on Labor Law claims and granted Yonkers' cross-motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court reinstated the Labor Law claims against Yonkers, ruling the plaintiff was an integral part of the construction crew entitled to statutory protection. However, the court granted summary judgment to Metro-North, dismissing the plaintiff's Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim due to federal preemption. The decision emphasized that Labor Law violations cannot form part of a FELA action.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law 240Labor Law 241Labor Law 241-aLabor Law 200Federal Employers' Liability ActFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Cagle v. White Auto Parts

The decedent, an auto parts salesperson, suffered a work-related back injury in 1988 and died in 1990. His widow, the claimant, initially filed a claim for death benefits, alleging death was consequential to the back injury, which was dismissed. In 1993, she filed a second claim, asserting death was causally related to occupational stress. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed this claim as untimely in 2001, a decision upheld by the Workers’ Compensation Board, prompting the claimant to appeal. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding the second claim untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, as the initial claim did not provide notice for a new theory of death. The court also found substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that the claimant was not mentally incompetent under Workers’ Compensation Law § 115, accepting a psychiatrist’s report over other medical testimony. Additionally, the court agreed the two-year filing period did not commence when the claimant "knew or should have known" of an occupational disease, as the stress was linked to the employer's financial situation, not the inherent nature of the employment itself.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsClaim TimelinessOccupational StressMental IncompetencyCausal RelationshipVentricular FibrillationBack InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatute of LimitationsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ6526755; ADJ6526979 ADJ6671938; ADJ6672994
Regular
Jul 13, 2015

Diane Nye vs. WALGREENS COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walgreens' petition for reconsideration of four findings and awards issued to applicant Diane Nye. Walgreens challenged the awards, claiming a May 14, 2004 psychiatric injury was nonindustrial, the combined permanent disability exceeded 100%, further apportionment was needed for obesity, smoking, and a subsequent nonindustrial injury, and Nye's occupation was misclassified. The Board found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's findings, including industrial psychiatric injury and appropriate apportionment based on AME opinions. The Board also affirmed the dual occupation classification and resulting permanent disability rating, as Nye's stock clerk duties were an integral part of her employment.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheHypertensionGastric SystemPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorApportionmentObesitySmoking
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,483 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