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

Bush v. Brunswick Corp.

This case addresses whether shareholders of a target company, ICO, can sue an acquiring company, Brunswick, for damages resulting from the diminution of stock value due to an alleged breach of a Merger Agreement. The majority shareholders intervened in ICO's lawsuit against Brunswick, but the trial court struck their petition, ruling they were not intended third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce the agreement, based on a clause stating the agreement was "not intended to confer upon any other person any rights or remedies hereunder." On appeal, the court examined the Merger Agreement and a related Shareholder Agreement, concluding that the shareholders were indeed intended third-party beneficiaries and the exclusionary clause did not apply to them, as they were integral participants in the merger. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Merger AgreementShareholder RightsThird-Party BeneficiaryBreach of ContractStock Value DiminutionInterventionAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationCorporate LawAnticipatory Breach
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alicea v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal where former employees of S & D Maintenance Company sued S&D and the City of New York, claiming third-party beneficiary status under a contract between S&D and the City for parking meter maintenance. The City terminated the contract due to fraud allegations, ceasing payments. Plaintiffs asserted the contract intended benefits for them, citing wage schedules and their long history with parking meter work. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment for the defendants, finding contractual ambiguity. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were merely incidental beneficiaries, not intended third-party beneficiaries, as the contract lacked explicit provisions for their benefit or enforcement rights, and payments were directed solely to S&D Maintenance.

Third-Party BeneficiaryContract LawSummary JudgmentIncidental BeneficiaryBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsPublic ContractsEmployee RightsContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. 03-09-00666-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2011

Zurich American Insurance Company v. Chantal McVey as Beneficiary of Troy McVey

After her husband Troy McVey was killed in a motor vehicle accident while driving to Houston for a job-related training conference, Chantal McVey, as Troy's beneficiary, sought workers' compensation survivor benefits from Troy's employer's insurance carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company. Zurich denied coverage, asserting that Troy's death was not compensable because he had not been acting within the course and scope of his employment. The Division of Workers' Compensation found Troy's death compensable, a decision Zurich sought judicial review of in district court. The district court granted McVey's motion for summary judgment and denied Zurich's. On appeal, Zurich asserts the district court erred in its legal determination that Troy had been acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of his accident, but the court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleEmployer-Provided TransportationSpecial MissionCompensable InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMotor Vehicle AccidentTravel Expense
References
15
Case No. 07-23-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Sherri Evans, Beneficiary of Michael S. Evans

Michael S. Evans, an Xcel Energy safety consultant, tragically died in a motorcycle accident while returning home to retrieve his company laptop. His beneficiary, Sherri Evans, filed a claim for death and burial benefits under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act against Old Republic Insurance Company (ORIC). The administrative law judge initially denied benefits, but the DWC Appeals Panel reversed this, finding the injury compensable. A jury trial affirmed this, leading the trial court to award benefits. ORIC appealed, arguing Michael was not in the course and scope of his employment. The Court of Appeals agreed with ORIC, reversing the trial court's judgment and rendering that the injury was not compensable, applying the 'coming and going' rule and rejecting the 'special mission' exception.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionFatal AccidentMotorcycle PolicyAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceEmployer Policy Violation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Onondaga Commercial Dry Wall Corp. v. 150 Clinton Street, Inc.

This case concerns the conflict between two classes of claimants, lienors under Article 2 of the Lien Law and trust beneficiaries under Article 3-A (the United States and the State of New York with tax claims), over a $23,000 balance due from an owner on a contract for the construction of apartment buildings. The fund was deposited into court under Lien Law § 55 in prior lien foreclosure actions. The Special Term initially favored the lienors, denying the U.S.'s application to enjoin foreclosure, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting the injunction and seemingly prioritizing tax claims. The Court of Appeals, interpreting the Lien Law, determined that Article 3-A provisions were intended to supplement, not supersede, older mechanic's lien provisions, especially regarding funds paid into court under section 55. The court held that such funds take the place of the property, making lien claims against them akin to claims against the property itself, which are not subject to tax claims under the statute. Therefore, the court reversed the Appellate Division's order and reinstated the Special Term's order, granting priority to the lienors.

Lien LawTrust FundMechanic's LiensTax ClaimsStatutory InterpretationFund PriorityForeclosure ActionsConstruction ContractArticle 2 Lien LawArticle 3-A Lien Law
References
2
Case No. 06-02-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Betty Manasco, as Workers' Compensation Beneficiary of the Estate of Jack Manasco v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Betty Manasco, as the workers' compensation beneficiary of Jack Manasco's estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The case concerned whether a head injury sustained by Jack Manasco in the course of his employment caused his subsequent malignant brain tumor, which led to his death. Manasco contested the trial court's decision to exclude the testimony of her expert witness, Dr. Richard Hamer, a neurologist, and the subsequent granting of summary judgment. The appellate court reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the reliability of scientific evidence and the Zülch/Manuelidis criteria for causation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the medical literature did not establish a causal link through epidemiological or other studies, thereby deeming the exclusion of Dr. Hamer's testimony within the zone of reasonableness.

Workers' CompensationCausationExpert WitnessSummary JudgmentBrain TumorHead InjuryMedical EvidenceEpidemiologyReliability of EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
References
10
Case No. 04-14-00685-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2015

American Casualty Co. of Reading, Penn. v. Denise Bushman as Beneficiary of Clayton F. Bushman, Jr.

This is an unopposed motion filed by Appellee Denise Bushman, as beneficiary of Clayton F. Bushman, Jr., Deceased, requesting a 30-day extension to file her Appellee's Brief. The current deadline is January 14, 2015, and the requested extended deadline is February 13, 2015. The motion cites counsel's heavy workload, involvement in other judicial and administrative proceedings, family commitments, and the need for adequate time to review the record and law. Appellant's counsel is unopposed to the motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion to ExtendBrief FilingTexasWorkers' CompensationUnopposed MotionDeadline ExtensionLegal PleadingGuadalupe CountyFourth Court of Appeals
References
3
Case No. 03-10-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

State Office of Risk Management v. Erika M. Cole, as Sole Beneficiary of the Estate of Carolyn P. Cole

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed a no-evidence summary judgment granted to Erika M. Cole, beneficiary of Carolyn P. Cole's estate. SORM challenged determinations by the Department of Insurance--Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) regarding Carolyn's impairment rating, maximum medical improvement date, and disability status. Erika argued SORM lacked evidence to contradict DWC's findings, which relied on a 'designated doctor's' report. The appellate court found SORM presented sufficient medical evidence, including reports from Dr. Gordon and Dr. Cochran, to create a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment and attorney's fees award were reversed and the case remanded.

Impairment Rating DisputeMaximum Medical Improvement DateSupplemental Income Benefits EligibilityMedical Opinion ConflictDesignated Doctor PresumptionNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentJudicial Review of Agency DecisionCervical Spine InjuryPre-existing Medical ConditionWorkers' Compensation Appeals
References
7
Case No. 07-07-0288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2009

State Office of Risk Management v. Rachel Leigh Herrera, Victoria Danielle Herrera, Matthew Ryen Herrera, Kelcey Mercedes Dena Herrera, Care'n Destiny Herrera, Beneficiaries of Jose Arturo Herrera, And Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit seeking judicial review of an appeals panel decision, which found SORM responsible for paying death benefits to the beneficiaries of deceased police officer Jose Herrera. Officer Herrera died in the line of duty, and SORM denied liability, arguing he was employed by the City of Friona, a self-insured entity, not the State. The trial court dismissed SORM's suit because SORM failed to timely name the City of Friona as a defendant within the statutory 40-day period. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the City of Friona was an indispensable party and the 40-day limitations period was not tolled for misidentification of parties. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to certain Herrera defendants, deeming SORM's claims against them to be without foundation.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyAttorney's FeesStatutory BeneficiariesMisidentification of PartiesAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Ehlinger

This case concerns an appeal by New York Underwriters, a worker's compensation insurer, challenging an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award of death benefits to the statutory beneficiaries of the deceased worker, Clarence G. Ehlinger. The insurer initially filed an appeal in district court, mistakenly naming the deceased worker as the sole defendant. After the statutory 20-day appeal period expired, an amended petition was filed correctly identifying the beneficiaries as defendants. The trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, a decision upheld by this court. The court ruled that the original petition naming the deceased was a nullity and did not confer jurisdiction over the beneficiaries, and the subsequent untimely amendment failed to cure this jurisdictional defect. The beneficiaries were thus entitled to stand on the IAB award.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionTimeliness of AppealIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory BeneficiariesMistaken IdentityParty MisnomerTexas LawAppellate ProcedureDeath Benefits
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 902 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