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. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 03-12-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

This case originated from a dispute over severance pay in an employment agreement. Raymond Bloch sought $95,000 in severance pay from SAVR Communications, Inc. and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission initially denied his claim, interpreting a 1998 rule under the Texas Payday Act. The district court reversed the TWC's decision, deeming the 1998 rule invalid, and awarded Bloch the $95,000. However, the district court dismissed Bloch's claim for attorney's fees due to res judicata, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Payday Act does not provide for fee-shifting.

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract
References
29
Case No. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2007

In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.

The case concerns Debtor Adelphia Communications Corp.'s objection to a $44.7 million claim by Lucent Technologies, Inc. Lucent sought to hold Adelphia liable for debts of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. under Delaware's Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, specifically Section 17-303, alleging de facto general partnership liability. Adelphia argued Lucent's actual knowledge of its limited partner status should defeat the claim. The Court ruled that Section 17-303(a) prioritizes the limited partner's conduct in determining a third party's reasonable belief, making the third party's actual knowledge of limited partner status irrelevant. Citing material factual disputes regarding Adelphia's conduct, the Court denied Adelphia's motion for summary judgment on Lucent's Section 17-303, alter ego, and other equitable claims, scheduling the Section 17-303 claim for the first stage of trial.

Limited Partnership LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionDelaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership ActSection 17-303De Facto General PartnerPartnership ControlVeil PiercingEquitable RemediesBreach of Contract ClaimBankruptcy Proceedings
References
41
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.

Thomas Esparza, Jr. appealed a trial court's judgment regarding his usury counterclaim against Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. The central dispute revolved around the applicability of a 'bona fide error' defense under Texas usury law, stemming from an employee's unauthorized charge of interest on Esparza's account. The appellate court clarified that intent to charge usurious interest is immaterial if such interest was, in fact, charged through a unilateral act within implied authority, and that mistakes of law do not fall under the 'accidental and bona fide error' exception. The court found that Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. had charged $93.60 in usurious interest. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment, awarding Esparza a forfeiture of $390.40 and $6,000.00 in attorney's fees as an offset against Nolan Wells' original claim, thus affirming the modified judgment.

Usury LawStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Error DefenseImplied AuthorityDebtor-Creditor RelationsAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesTexas Civil StatutesCommercial TransactionsInterest Rates
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dialysis Clinic, Inc. v. Kevin Medley

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether the attorney-client privilege protects communications between a corporation's legal counsel and a third-party nonemployee. Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (the corporation) hired XMi Commercial Real Estate (the third-party) to manage its properties. When tenants (Kevin Medley et al.) subpoenaed documents from XMi containing communications with Dialysis Clinic's legal counsel, privilege was asserted. The trial court ruled that the communications were protected, extending the privilege to XMi as an agent. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the attorney-client privilege applies if the nonemployee is the functional equivalent of an employee, the communications relate to the subject matter of legal counsel's representation, and were made with the intention of confidentiality. The court found XMi met these criteria.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeCorporate LawThird-Party AgentsFunctional Equivalent DoctrineProperty ManagementUnlawful DetainerConfidential CommunicationsInterlocutory AppealTennessee LawAgency Relationship
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 2,653 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