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. 13-00-342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

R & R Contractors and R & R Field Services, Inc. v. Mary Torres

This case involves an appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Corpus Christi, regarding a wrongful death action. Gregorio Torres, Jr., an employee of R&R Contractors and R&R Oilfield Services, Inc., died after a thousand-pound tank fell on him during unloading operations. His surviving spouse and children filed a gross negligence suit under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, and a jury awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, R&R raised two issues: the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for exemplary damages. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, citing changes from the 1995 tort reform legislation. However, the court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against both the employee-operator and the corporation, based on extreme risk and conscious indifference to safety. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to the incorrect standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyCrane Operation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malkiewicz v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.

This memorandum addresses whether a guarantor of a self-insured employer's workers' compensation obligations is immune from liability under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law, similar to an insurer. Plaintiffs John Malkiewicz and Tim Lemons, along with their spouses, sued defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Inc., the guarantor for its self-insured subsidiary Donnelley Printing Company, alleging negligence in providing safety services after they were injured. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that as a guarantor, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Inc. is entitled to the same immunity as a workers' compensation insurer. This decision aims to encourage safety initiatives by guarantors without fear of increased liability and maintain an uninhibited choice between insured and self-insured status under state law.

Workers' Compensation ImmunitySelf-Insured EmployerGuarantor LiabilityParent-Subsidiary RelationshipNegligenceSafety ServicesStatutory InterpretationFirst ImpressionMotion to DismissTennessee Law
References
10
Case No. M2002-00791-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Royal Insurance v. R & R Drywall and Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance

A workers' compensation insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, sought a retrospective premium increase from R & R Drywall, Inc., after an audit suggested the contractor's subcontractors employed more workers than initially declared. R & R Drywall contended these additional workers were partners, not employees, and thus not subject to its workers' compensation policy. While an administrative law judge initially sided with R & R, the Chancery Court reversed, ruling in favor of Royal Insurance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Chancery Court's decision, emphasizing that the insurance company bore the risk of liability for these workers during the policy period, and the contractor's attempts to reclassify them after the fact would undermine the purpose of workers' compensation law. The judgment of the Chancery Court was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective PremiumSubcontractor LiabilityEmployee MisclassificationPartnership StatusAdministrative AppealChancery Court ReversalAppellate AffirmationRisk AssessmentWorkers' Compensation Law Purpose
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Breanna R.

The Family Court, Erie County, dismissed a petition alleging that the respondent father sexually abused his three children. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The Appellate Division found that the out-of-court statements of the two oldest children describing incidents of sexual abuse by the father were sufficiently corroborated by validation testimony from a licensed psychologist, testimony from a CPS caseworker, age-inappropriate knowledge of sexual matters by the children, cross-corroborating accounts, and consistent behaviors. Consequently, Breanna R. and Giovanna R. were found to be abused children, and Giulianna R. was found to be a neglected child. The matter was remitted to Family Court, Erie County, for a dispositional hearing before a different judge.

child abusechild neglectsexual abuseFamily Court Actcorroborationout-of-court statementsvalidation testimonypsychological testingappellate reviewreversal
References
8
Case No. NO. 14-19-00384-CV (Trial Court Cause No. 2018-40587)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2021

in the Interest of I.D.R., and A.B.R., Children

This appeal originates from a suit to establish a parent-child relationship concerning I.D.R. and A.B.R., initiated by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. The trial court entered a default judgment against Rejadia Rogers, the mother, for failing to appear, adjudicating issues of child support, custody, and access rights. Mother's motion for a new trial was subsequently denied. On appeal, Mother argued that her failure to appear was not intentional due to car trouble and medical complications, and she presented a meritorious defense. The appellate court, applying the Craddock test, found that Mother satisfied all three elements, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Default JudgmentParent-Child RelationshipChild SupportChild CustodyAccess RightsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseUnintentional Failure to Appear
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1981

J. A. R. Management Corp. v. Sweeney

J. A. R. Management Corp. sold an apartment building to J. R. R. Realty Co., allegedly violating a collective bargaining agreement with Local 32B-32J S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO by failing to give notice and ensure the buyer adopted the agreement. The union initiated arbitration against both J. A. R. and J. R. R. and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against J. R. R. Petitioners J. A. R. and J. R. R. sought to vacate the arbitration notice, arguing NLRB pre-emption. The Supreme Court granted their motion. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the notice to arbitrate was vacated only for J. R. R. Realty Co., while the motion against J. A. R. Management Corp. was denied. Arbitration against J. A. R. is stayed pending the NLRB's resolution of claims against J. R. R., after which arbitration may proceed for any unresolved disputes arising from the collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRB Pre-emptionVacate Notice to ArbitrateEmployer-Union DisputeSale of BusinessSuccessor EmployerUnfair Labor PracticesStay of ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.S. ex rel. R.R. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiff M.S., individually and on behalf of her autistic son R.R., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). M.S. sought tuition reimbursement for R.R.’s unilateral private school placement after challenging the adequacy of the Department’s proposed Individualized Education Program (IEP). An Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) initially sided with M.S., but a State Review Officer (SRO) reversed this decision, finding the IEP compliant with IDEA. In the federal district court, M.S. appealed the SRO's decision. The court, affording due deference to the SRO's expertise, upheld the SRO's finding that the Department’s IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate, thereby denying M.S.'s motion for summary judgment and granting the Department's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationAutismTuition ReimbursementIndividualized Education ProgramDue ProcessAdministrative AppealSummary JudgmentEducational LawDisability Rights
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,458 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