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

Alexander A. Stratienko, M. D. v. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority

This appellate opinion affirms the trial court's judgments in a long-standing case stemming from a 2004 incident where Dr. Stratienko pushed another doctor at Erlanger Hospital. Dr. Stratienko, the plaintiff, appealed several decisions: the granting of partial summary judgment to Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority on claims of breach of contract, inducement of breach, conspiracy, and immunity; the denial of further complaint amendments and discovery; the exclusion of administrative hearing claims; and the finding that he failed to prove intentional interference with business relations. The Court of Appeals found no error, applying the 'law of the case' doctrine for facts previously established in federal courts and upholding the trial court's discretionary rulings. Specifically, the court affirmed that the plaintiff failed to establish the elements for intentional interference with business relations, noting a lack of proof regarding specific third parties, improper means or motive, and demonstrable damages.

Medical DisputesHospital Authority LiabilityBusiness InterferenceAppellate Court ProcedureSummary Judgment StandardPleading AmendmentsDiscovery DisputesLaw of the Case DoctrineMedical PrivilegesEconomic Damages
References
35
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. M2002-02116-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2004

Overnite Transportation v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480

This case originated from a labor dispute in October 1999, involving Overnite Transportation Company and Teamsters Local Union No. 480. Overnite sought injunctive relief against the union for alleged violence during a strike at its Nashville facility and later amended its complaint to include claims for civil contempt due to injunction violations and intentional interference with business relations. The trial court dismissed the civil contempt petition as moot and the intentional interference claim for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the dismissal of the civil contempt petition, holding that Overnite could seek compensatory damages for the union's contemptuous conduct, even if the conduct had ceased. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the intentional interference claim, finding that Overnite's complaint failed to meet the necessary pleading requirements.

Labor DisputeInjunction ViolationCivil ContemptCompensatory DamagesIntentional InterferenceBusiness RelationsAppellate ReviewMootness DoctrineInjunction BondRule 65.05(1)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C.

Dr. Joyce Brown, a pain relief physician, sued Walgreens, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and CVS for intentional interference with business relations and invasion of privacy. She alleged that these pharmacies refused to fill her patients' prescriptions, sometimes citing a DEA investigation into her practice. The court found that Dr. Brown failed to demonstrate improper means, motive, or intent for the interference claim, and could not prove loss of business relationships or damages. For the invasion of privacy claim, the court ruled that the DEA investigation was not a "private" matter after Dr. Brown herself publicized it through prior lawsuits, and that the disclosures by pharmacists were not sufficiently widespread to constitute "publicity" and not "highly offensive". Furthermore, the court determined that the investigation into prescription practices for controlled substances was a matter of legitimate public concern. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed Dr. Brown's claims with prejudice.

Summary judgmentIntentional interference with business relationsInvasion of privacyPharmacist discretionDEA investigationControlled substancesOpioid prescriptionsProfessional judgmentTennessee tort lawPublic concern doctrine
References
26
Case No. 07-12-0372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2013

in Re Michael Rockafellow & MTBC, Ltd., Relator

Relators Michael Rockafellow, MTBC, Inc., and TBC Warehouse, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus to direct Respondent, the Honorable Les Hatch of the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, to vacate an order compelling disclosure of hair care product suppliers to real party in interest, SalonQuest, L.L.C. SalonQuest had sued Rockafellow and MTBC for tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and breach of contract, seeking to identify suppliers who diverted products outside its authorized distribution channels. This is the second time Rockafellow sought mandamus relief on this issue, having previously succeeded in vacating an order authorizing pre-suit deposition based on trade secret privilege. The Court of Appeals found that Rockafellow successfully established that his supplier list was a trade secret due to extensive effort in development, secrecy measures, and its value to his business. SalonQuest failed to demonstrate that the information was 'necessary for a fair adjudication' of its claims, especially given the availability of other contractual and technological anti-diversion tools it had not fully utilized. Therefore, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling disclosure.

MandamusTrade Secret PrivilegeDiscovery DisputeHair Care Products DiversionDistribution ChannelsBusiness CompetitionTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mi-Kyung Cho v. Young Bin Café

The plaintiff, Mi-Kyung Cho, a hostess at Young Bin Café in Flushing, New York, sued her employers, Young Bin Café and Gabin, following a physical assault by a customer in 2008. She alleged negligence, retaliatory discharge under New York and New Jersey anti-discrimination laws, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference with business relations and contract. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all claims. It found that her complaints (a police report and a request for workers' compensation) were not 'protected activity' under the relevant human rights laws, her tortious interference claims lacked merit due to a lack of identified relationships/contracts, and her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred by New York's one-year statute of limitations.

Retaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawNew Jersey Law Against DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressTortious InterferenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate Judge DecisionEmployment Discrimination
References
102
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antonios A. Alevizopoulos & Associates, Inc. v. Comcast International Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiffs sued Comcast for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with business relations, and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty, stemming from an alleged joint venture in Brazil for paging and cellular services. Plaintiffs claimed Comcast, Villares, and Gonin concealed their continued negotiations and formed a joint venture after telling plaintiffs the deal had failed. Comcast moved for summary judgment arguing claims were time-barred and, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied Comcast's motion for summary judgment, finding that public disclosures in Brazil did not automatically preclude equitable tolling. The court also denied Comcast's motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract claim and the conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty claim, finding sufficient pleading. However, the court granted Comcast's motion to dismiss the tortious interference with business relations claim as redundant.

Tortious InterferenceContract DisputeSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingFraudulent ConcealmentFiduciary DutyConspiracyJoint Venture
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2008

Curren v. Carbonic Systems, Inc.

The plaintiff, an at-will employee, was terminated from his position as service department manager at Carbonic Systems, Inc. by president Kathy Casey, after her husband, Scott Casey, reported seeing the plaintiff load a company computer into his vehicle. The plaintiff subsequently sued defendants, alleging defamation, breach of contract, and tortious interference with contract and business relations, claiming they told others he was fired for stealing. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding qualified privilege for Kathy Casey's statements and that plaintiff was an at-will employee. On appeal, the order was modified; the Supreme Court improperly dismissed the defamation cause of action against Scott Casey, as there was an issue of fact regarding his malice due to personal animosity. However, the dismissal of claims against Kathy Casey and Carbonic, and the contract-related and tortious interference with business relations claims, were affirmed.

DefamationSummary JudgmentQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceAt-Will EmploymentBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceRespondeat SuperiorAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
14
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Showing 1-10 of 11,198 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