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

Security National Insurance Co. v. Farmer

Roger Farmer sustained two on-the-job low back injuries in January 1995 and April 1998. Security National Insurance Company was the carrier for the first injury, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the second. Disputes arose regarding the compensability of Farmer's L4-5 and L5-S1 disc herniations after April 1998, and which carrier was liable. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel affirmed the hearing officer's decision against Security National, finding the January 1995 injury was a producing cause. Security National appealed to the trial court, which applied a substantial evidence rule, limited discovery, and affirmed the appeals panel's decision. On appeal, the higher court determined the trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard of review, ruling that a modified de novo standard should have been used. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with a modified de novo review.

Standard of ReviewModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensability DisputeEligibility for BenefitsDisc Herniation InjurySpinal Injury ClaimInsurance Carrier DisputeAdministrative Law AppealStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiBlasi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Frank DiBlasi sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits, citing disability due to depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, and limb numbness. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. DiBlasi appealed, arguing the Appeals Council failed to consider new material evidence (Dr. Rinzler's assessment), erred by not remanding for clarification of a prior medical opinion, and ignored a psychiatrist's letter. The court found the new evidence cumulative and not material, and that earlier records consistently reflected DiBlasi's difficulties. Ultimately, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that DiBlasi could perform simple, routine, unskilled tasks with minimal stress and contact, and that such jobs exist in the national economy. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security BenefitsDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentDepressionDiabetesGlobal Assessment of Functioning
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. FJC Security Services, Inc.

Latía M. Jones, a pro se plaintiff, sued FJC Security Services, Inc. alleging racial and gender discrimination, failure to provide a full-time position, failure to promote, wrongful termination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII. FJC moved for summary judgment, presenting extensive evidence that its employment decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including site closure, Jones's failure to bid on positions, performance issues leading to client complaints, and her ultimate termination for job abandonment and refusal to cooperate. Jones failed to file a response. The court found that FJC met its burden and Jones did not raise a genuine issue of material fact, thus granting FJC's motion for summary judgment.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFifth CircuitMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
93
Case No. 01-07-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2009

Sembera Security Systems, Inc. A/K/A Sembera Security, Inc. v. El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company, F/N/A Texas Workers' Compensation Fund and Texas Workers' Compensation Fund, Texas Workers' Compensation Fund

The case involves a dispute between Sembera Security Systems Inc. (Sembera) and Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) regarding the cancellation of Sembera’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Sembera sued TMI for breach of contract, alleging that TMI improperly cancelled its policy for non-payment of an "additional premium" during the policy term, leading to the termination of an agreement with En-Touch Systems, Inc. and causing Sembera lost profits. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the trial court initially ruling in favor of Sembera. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that TMI's cancellation of the policy was justified due to Sembera's failure to repay a $490 portion of the estimated initial premium after the policy's retroactive reinstatement. The appellate court held that TMI had the contractual right to cancel for non-payment of premium.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumContract InterpretationLost Profits DamagesAppellate ReviewRetroactive ReinstatementInsurance Agent Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

This opinion addresses a motion for class certification in consolidated actions alleging securities and common law fraud. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class against various defendants, including Bear Stearns & Co. and Baird Patrick & Co., for a scheme to manipulate the prices of 'Blech Securities' between October 1991 and September 1994. The court reviewed the class action requirements under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finding that these requirements were satisfied, the court granted the motion for class certification, with the creation of three subclasses to manage the litigation efficiently.

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions
References
52
Case No. 2017-06-0707
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2017

Reazkallah, Maikel v. Dynamic Security, Inc.

Maikel Reazkallah, an employee of Dynamic Security, Inc., filed for an expedited hearing seeking temporary disability benefits following an on-the-job elbow injury and subsequent termination. The central issue was whether his termination ended his entitlement to these benefits. The Court found that Dynamic Security failed to prove Reazkallah was terminated for misconduct, crediting his testimony that he did not sleep on duty. Consequently, the Court ruled that Reazkallah is entitled to past temporary disability benefits from April 12 through May 12, 2017. The Court ordered Dynamic Security to file a Wage Statement, pay medical bills related to Dr. Alkayyali's treatment, and referred the employer to the Compliance Unit for failing to meet claims handling standards.

expedited hearingtemporary disability benefitsworker's compensationmisconductterminationmedical restrictionswage statementclaims handling standardsemployer liabilityjudicial review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaffin v. Colvin

Plaintiff Kenneth Chaffin sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of his application for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The District Court, presided over by Judge John T. Curtin, evaluated the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which had found the plaintiff not disabled. The court determined that the ALJ erred in relying on vocational expert testimony that conflicted with the plaintiff's residual functional capacity (RFC). Specifically, the hypothetical presented to the expert described limitations for sedentary work, but the expert identified jobs classified as light work without reconciling the discrepancy. As a result, the court denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Social Security DisabilityDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertResidual Functional CapacityLight WorkSedentary WorkMedical OpinionsALJ Error
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,610 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