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. 09-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Interflow Factors Corporation v. Hilton Holdings, LLC

This case involves a dispute between Interflow Factors Corporation, a factoring company, and Hilton Holdings, LLC, an account debtor. Interflow purchased accounts owed to Gulf Coast Security & Investigation by Hilton, and Hilton was notified of this assignment. Despite the notification, Hilton later paid Gulf Coast directly instead of Interflow, totaling $155,152.58. Interflow sought to collect these funds from Hilton, arguing that under UCC section 9.406, Hilton was obligated to pay the assignee. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Hilton and denied Interflow's. The Court of Appeals reversed both decisions, holding that the Factoring Agreement constituted a valid security agreement and that Hilton could not rely on estoppel or a Rule 11 Agreement between Interflow and Gulf Coast to avoid its obligation to Interflow. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

Factoring AgreementAccount DebtorAssignment of AccountsUniform Commercial CodeSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawBreach of ContractRule 11 Agreement
References
24
Case No. ADJ784749 (AHM 0115079)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

Carlos Bautista vs. Prime Factors, Inc., Factory Filament, Inc., Isaac Powell, Uninsured Employers Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Carlos Bautista for an industrial injury to his spine sustained in November 2003. The applicant was hired in California by Prime Factors Inc., an illegally uninsured employer, and then flown to Mississippi for a job. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is denying Isaac Powell's petition for reconsideration of prior findings. These findings established California's jurisdiction, the employer's uninsured status, and the applicant's industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrime FactorsInc.Isaac PowellUninsured Employers FundIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herman v. Hospital Staffing Services, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor sought an injunction against Kenneth A. Welt (Bankruptcy Trustee for HSSI), Capital Factors, Inc., and Ron Lusk (President of HSSI) to prevent violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's 'hot goods' provision. HSSI failed to pay statutory wages to employees, leading to the shipment of 'hot goods' (patient reports and billing documents) in interstate commerce. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim (arguing documents were not 'goods' and employees were local), and requesting the court to abstain due to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The court denied all motions, affirming its jurisdiction under the police power exception to the automatic bankruptcy stay, confirming the documents as 'goods' under FLSA, and ruling the action was not duplicative. The court also held Ron Lusk personally liable as an 'employer' under FLSA.

Fair Labor Standards ActBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayPolice Power ExceptionHot Goods DoctrineInterstate CommerceWage ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationCorporate Officer Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munusamy v. McClelland Engineers, Inc.

This Memorandum Order addresses three consolidated maritime death and injury cases brought by foreign plaintiffs against American and foreign defendants. The defendants sought dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, asserting that foreign law should apply due to insufficient connections with the U.S. The court, presided over by Judge Joe J. Fisher, meticulously examined jurisdictional bases, choice of law principles (including the Lauritzen-Romero-Rhoditis factors), and both public and private interests relevant to a forum non conveniens dismissal. Emphasizing the "equality of treatment to all seamen" mandated by the Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, the court ultimately denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that such dismissal would contradict federal maritime law. The court decided to defer the choice of law determination until evidence on the merits had been presented.

Maritime LawForum Non ConveniensChoice of LawJones ActDeath on the High Seas ActAdmiralty JurisdictionInternational LitigationSeamen's RightsFederal JurisdictionForeign Plaintiffs
References
20
Case No. W1999-01512-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2000

State v. John Vengrin

The defendant, John Joseph Vengrin, appealed his 25-year sentence for second-degree murder, arguing the trial court improperly considered testimony from another case for enhancement factors. The appellate court found that while the trial court erred in relying on matters outside the record, the defendant waived the objection by also advocating for the consideration of external evidence for mitigating factors. Despite the error in judicial notice, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the imposed sentence was proper after a de novo review, as the identified enhancement factors significantly outweighed the mitigating factors.

Sentencing ErrorJudicial NoticeAppellate ReviewWaiver of ObjectionEnhancement FactorsMitigating FactorsSecond Degree MurderCriminal LawTennessee Appellate ProcedureRecord on Appeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. W2007-00060-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2008

State of Tennessee v. Eric D. Charles

Eric D. Charles, the defendant, appealed his ten-year sentence for aggravated robbery, arguing the trial court misapplied two enhancement factors. While the State conceded one factor (multiple victims) was improperly applied, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's application of the second enhancement factor, which stated the defendant was a leader in an offense involving two or more criminal actors. The court found sufficient proof that Travont Cole, who drove the defendant to the motel and waited for him, was a criminal actor. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the sentence, determining that the application of a single valid enhancement factor was sufficient. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Aggravated RobberySentencing AppealEnhancement FactorsMitigating FactorsCriminal ProcedureAppellate ReviewCriminal ActorsLeader in OffenseTennessee Bureau of InvestigationUndercover Operation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antonio Lomeli v. Southwest Shipyard, L.P.

Antonio Lomeli sued Southwest Shipyard, L.P. for negligence after sustaining a serious left leg injury from falling into an open barge hatch while working as a welder. Southwest moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusive remedy provision of the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) as an affirmative defense, claiming Lomeli was its “borrowed employee.” Lomeli contested this, arguing Southwest failed to produce a contract and that he presented evidence raising fact issues on multiple factors of the borrowed employee test. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Southwest. On appeal, the court reviewed the nine-factor borrowed employee test, finding most factors weighed in favor of borrowed employee status, even considering some neutral or opposing factors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Lomeli was Southwest’s borrowed employee, thereby limiting his remedy to LHWCA benefits.

Maritime LawBorrowed Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceAffirmative DefenseEmployer LiabilityWorker InjuryTexas Appellate CourtFifth Circuit PrecedentEmployment Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Franklin v. New England Motor Freight

Claimant, a tractor-trailer truck driver, suffered work-related back injuries in 2012 and 2013, leading to disability benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, factoring in vocational considerations. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reduced the award, ruling that vocational factors are not applicable for temporary disability determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) does not permit consideration of vocational factors for temporary partial disabilities, reserving such considerations for the duration of permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawWage-earning capacityTemporary partial disabilityPermanent partial disabilityVocational factorsAppellate reviewBack injuryTractor-trailer truck driverInjury recurrenceCompensation rate
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,162 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