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. 10-92-084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1992

Lisa Beth Riley, Individually and as Next Friend for Amanda Gail Riley, Jennifer Nichol Riley, and Michael Joseph Riley v. Houston General Insurance Co.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a workers' compensation case. The appellants sought benefits after Roger Dale Riley's death in a fire that occurred in his apartment while he was asleep. Riley was employed as a maintenance man and lived rent-free at the apartment complex, being 'on call' but not compensated unless he responded to emergencies. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Riley's death did not occur in the course and scope of his employment. The fire was not related to his work, and he was not performing any employer functions at the time of the incident, despite being 'on call'.

Summary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentOn-Call DutyFatal AccidentFire IncidentAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimMaintenance WorkerEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2009

Alcalde v. Riley

The plaintiff firefighter sued Jacqueline Riley for personal injuries sustained while responding to a fire at Riley's home in Queens. The fire, caused by reckless use of a torch by subcontractors, prompted the plaintiff to allege violations of General Municipal Law § 205-a and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted Riley's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court found Riley failed to demonstrate a lack of connection between alleged statutory violations and the plaintiff's injuries, and that a triable issue of fact existed regarding common-law negligence due to a blocked staircase on the premises.

Personal InjuryFirefighter InjuryGeneral Municipal LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate Court DecisionPremises LiabilityHomeowner ResponsibilityStatutory ViolationsSubcontractor Negligence
References
14
Case No. ADJ1357794 (VNO 0359450)
Regular
Apr 06, 2016

JANET RILEY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/ LAUSC MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a previous award. The Board found that applicant Janet Riley's January 5, 2011 stroke was a compensable consequence of her admitted industrial cumulative trauma injury to her internal and psyche. However, the Board deferred the issue of temporary total disability, citing insufficient medical evidence to establish the specific period of disability. The original award of temporary disability indemnity and further medical treatment was modified to reflect these decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJanet RileyCounty of Los AngelesLAUSC Medical Centercumulative traumainternal and psyche injurycentral operative techniciantemporary disability indemnitystrokeindustrial stress
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Ina/Aetna Insurance Co.

Plaintiff Quinton Riley suffered a work-related back injury in March 1989 while employed by Through Transportation Company, whose insurer, INA/AETNA, is the defendant. Following surgery, his treating physician, Dr. Morris Ray, assessed a 5% permanent anatomical disability from this injury. In March 1990, Riley sustained a second back injury while working for Carter-Click Company, leading to further surgery. The defendant, INA/AETNA, appealed the trial court's award of 30% permanent partial disability, arguing for the application of the 'last injurious injury rule' to shift liability to the subsequent employer. The Supreme Court examined the precedent of the rule and determined it was inapplicable here because a permanent disability assessment for the first injury had been made prior to the second injury. Consequently, the trial court's award to Riley was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLast Injurious Injury RuleSuccessive InjuriesMedical AssessmentAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionEmployer LiabilityCausationApportionmentDisability Rating
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1994

Triplex Communications, Inc. v. Riley

Officers James Riley and Mary Gray, injured by an intoxicated driver, sued Triplex Communications, Inc., a radio station promoting a nightclub where the driver was overserved. They alleged joint enterprise, civil conspiracy, and negligent promotion. The trial court did not find the radio station liable, but the court of appeals reversed, allowing these claims. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the radio station could not be held liable under any of the three theories. The Court found insufficient evidence for joint enterprise, an incorrect definition of civil conspiracy requiring specific intent, and no legal duty for negligent promotion under the circumstances, thereby ordering that the plaintiffs take nothing from the radio station.

Joint EnterpriseCivil ConspiracyNegligent PromotionDram Shop ActTexas Alcoholic Beverage CodeTort LawLiabilityRadio Station LiabilityNightclub LiabilityIntoxicated Driver
References
14
Case No. NO. 01-22-00676-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

City of Pasadena v. Janet Poulos

Janet Poulos sued her employer, the City of Pasadena, for hostile work environment, retaliation, and racial discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). The City filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, asserting governmental immunity and untimely claims, which the trial court denied. On appeal, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of dismissal for Poulos's retaliation claim, noting the City failed to adequately challenge it. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order for Poulos's race-discrimination and hostile work environment claims. It concluded that Poulos failed to allege a prima facie case for racial discrimination due to a lack of "ultimate employment decisions" and did not demonstrate sufficiently severe or pervasive harassment for a hostile work environment claim based on race.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentGovernmental ImmunityTCHRARule 91a Motion to DismissAdverse Employment ActionAppellate ReviewTimeliness of Claim
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Riley

Tommy Lee and Peggy Sue Riley appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Obion County, which terminated their parental rights to their two minor children. The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) initiated the action due to persistent neglectful living conditions and the parents' limited mental capacities. The Circuit Court's decision was based on findings that termination was in the children's best interest, the conditions leading to removal persisted, and there was little likelihood of the parents remedying them. The appellate court reviewed TDHS's adherence to foster care procedures, provision of rehabilitative services, and visitation arrangements, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, citing the children's physical safety and psychological maturation.

parental rights terminationchild neglectfoster caremental retardationfamily reunification effortschild welfaredependent and neglected childrenjuvenile court appealclear and convincing evidencebest interest of the child
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Triplex Communications, Inc.

Police officers James R. Riley and Mary Gray suffered personal injuries after being struck by a drunk driver who had been served alcohol at The Cowboy Palace Inc. and Vernis J. "Joey" Dartez. They sued Triplex Communications, Inc., and Radio Station KZZB-95 FM, alleging vicarious liability and negligent promotion for their "B-95 Ladies Night" event. The trial court initially ruled against The Cowboy Palace and Dartez but favored Triplex/B-95. Appellants appealed, contesting the trial court's refusal to submit jury questions on joint enterprise and negligent promotion, as well as an erroneous definition of civil conspiracy. The appellate court found errors in the jury charge regarding civil conspiracy and agreed that the issue of joint enterprise and negligent promotion should have been submitted to the jury due to the foreseeable risks associated with the radio station's promotional activities. The decision was affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

Personal InjuryNegligent PromotionDram Shop LiabilityJoint EnterpriseCivil ConspiracyAlcohol LiabilityForeseeabilityMedia LiabilityDuty of CareTexas Appellate Court
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riley v. Alexander/Ryan Marine Services Co.

This case addresses whether an oil and gas spar platform, the Mad Dog, qualifies as a "vessel" under the Jones Act, impacting plaintiff Jerry Riley's claims. Riley, an employee of BP America Production Company, suffered spinal injuries on the platform and sued his employer, the platform owner BP Exploration and Production Inc., and Alexander/Ryan Marine Services Co. The BP Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the platform's immobility meant Riley was not a seaman. The Court meticulously analyzed the Mad Dog's characteristics, including its attachment to the seabed by eleven mooring lines and two pipelines, and its estimated sixteen-month relocation process. Concluding that the Mad Dog was a permanent structure, practically incapable of maritime transportation rather than mere movement, the Court ruled it was not a vessel. Consequently, Riley's Jones Act and general maritime law claims were dismissed, and summary judgment was granted in favor of the BP Defendants, with the Longshore and Harborworkers Compensation Act identified as Riley's exclusive remedy against his employer.

Jones Actmaritime lawoil and gas platformvessel statussummary judgmentoffshore platformOuter Continental ShelfLHWCAseaman statusMad Dog spar
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 125 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