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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Violanda Soledad v. Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Violanda Soledad sued Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company after it denied her uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance claim. Soledad was injured as a passenger in a single-vehicle accident caused by a co-employee's negligence while both were in the course and scope of their employment. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, Soledad filed a claim for UM/UIM benefits under her personal policy, asserting damages exceeded the workers' compensation coverage. Texas Farm Bureau denied the claim, arguing that Soledad was not "legally entitled to recover" damages from the owner or operator of the uninsured vehicle due to the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Texas Farm Bureau, which the appellate court affirmed, concluding that Soledad was not legally entitled to recover from her employer or co-employee.

Uninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristUM/UIM CoverageWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationNegligenceBodily InjuryTexas Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hauber-Malota v. Philadelphia Insurance Companies

Plaintiff, injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of her employment, initially filed a personal injury action against her co-employees and the owner of the other vehicle, which was dismissed under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. Subsequently, she sought supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from her employer's insurers. The core legal question was whether an employee, barred from suing a co-employee for negligence due to workers' compensation exclusivity, is entitled to SUM benefits under the employer's automobile liability policy. The court concluded that because the plaintiff was not 'legally entitled to recover damages' from the co-employee operator due to Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), she was not entitled to SUM benefits. Therefore, the lower court's denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment was reversed, the motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawSupplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist BenefitsSUM CoverageCo-employee ImmunityExclusive Remedy ProvisionsAutomobile Liability InsuranceContractual LiabilityInsurance Law § 3420Summary JudgmentMotor Vehicle Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1998

In re Unborn Child

The petitioner, Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County, successfully moved for summary judgment, asserting that respondent Sierra K.'s unborn child was derivatively neglected. This finding was based on Sierra K.'s history of drug abuse, her failure to comply with prior court orders for rehabilitation, and the termination of parental rights for her four previous children, with a fifth born testing positive for cocaine. The court found that Sierra K.'s continued drug use during her current pregnancy constituted a fundamental defect in her understanding of parental duties, placing the unborn child at substantial risk. The decision affirmed that an unborn child is considered a legal personality under Family Court Act article 10 and is entitled to protection from intentional acts of harm by its mother, rejecting the respondent's arguments against legal personality for the unborn. Consequently, derivative neglect was established, and a dispositional hearing was scheduled.

Unborn child rightsDerivative neglectMaternal drug abuseParental rights terminationFamily Court ActSummary judgmentFetal protectionLegal personality of fetusConstitutional lawPublic policy
References
23
Case No. ADJ9339421 ADJ9275614 ADJ9339395
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

ROBERT LEITHISER vs. MICROSOFT, GALLAGHER BASSETT RANCHO CUCAMONGA

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a decision denying an applicant's psychological injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and affirmed the original finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial psyche injury. Consequently, the lien claimant is not entitled to recover costs for psychological medical treatment. However, the WCAB deferred the issue of whether the lien claimant can recover for medical-legal costs, returning it to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and Orderindustrial injurypsychepsychological treatmentmedical-legal costscontested claimpreponderance of the evidencemedical-legal expenses
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loncar v. Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co.

This is an insurance coverage dispute where appellants, the Loncars, sought uninsured motorist benefits from appellees, Progressive and Chubb, after Brian Loncar was injured in a traffic accident. Recovery from the City of Dallas fire truck operator was barred by official immunity. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurance companies, concluding that the policy's "legally entitled to recover" clause did not provide coverage when the other driver is legally protected by immunity. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the unambiguous policy terms preclude coverage in such circumstances. The court also denied claims under the Texas Insurance Code, as no policy coverage was established.

Insurance CoverageUninsured MotoristOfficial ImmunityGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAppellate DecisionTexas LawAutomobile AccidentPolicy Language
References
19
Case No. CA 13-01535
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

HAUBER-MALOTA, MICHELLE T. v. PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE CO.

The plaintiff, Michelle T. Hauber-Malota, was injured as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a coemployee and owned by their common employer, JMFSC, when it was rear-ended by another vehicle also operated by a coemployee. Her initial personal injury action against the coemployee and the vehicle owner was dismissed based on the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions. Subsequently, she sought supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits from her employer's insurers, Philadelphia Insurance Companies, Tokio Marine Group, and Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court concluded that because the plaintiff was not "legally entitled to recover damages" from the coemployee due to Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), she was also not entitled to SUM benefits under her employer's policy.

SUM BenefitsUninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWorkers Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCoemployee LiabilityAutomobile Liability InsuranceContractual ObligationTort LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1995

Valentine v. Safeco Lloyds Insurance Co.

Jennifer Valentine, an employee of United Parcel Services (UPS), sustained injuries after falling from her truck, an incident she attributed to UPS's negligence regarding a faulty bumper. She received $30,000 in worker's compensation benefits. Subsequently, Valentine sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (UPS's automobile liability insurer) and her own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier, Safeco Lloyds Insurance Company. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both insurers. On appeal, Valentine challenged the summary judgment in favor of Safeco, arguing that the judgment was not final and that UPS was effectively underinsured, entitling her to claim from her UIM policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that worker's compensation law precluded Valentine from being "legally entitled to recover" damages from her employer, UPS, and therefore, UIM coverage from Safeco was not available.

Summary JudgmentUninsured Motorist CoverageUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWorker's CompensationEmployer NegligenceInsurance LawLegal Entitlement to RecoverSubrogation RightsDeceptive Trade Practices ActFinality of Judgment
References
25
Case No. 03-00-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2001

Reliance National Indemnity Company v. Laura Rose Bar-Yardin and United Fashions of Texas, Ltd.

Reliance National Indemnity Company appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Laura Rose Bar-Yardin and United Fashions of Texas Ltd. The case stemmed from a car accident involving Corinne Meler, a T.G.I. Friday's employee, who died while acting within the scope of her employment. Because Meler had no qualified legal beneficiaries, Reliance, as the workers' compensation carrier, paid death benefits to the Subsequent Injury Fund. Reliance then sued Bar-Yardin, asserting subrogation rights to recover these benefits, arguing the Fund qualified as a 'legal beneficiary.' The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that under Texas law, a workers' compensation carrier is not entitled to subrogation for death benefits paid to the Subsequent Injury Fund, as the Fund lacks a direct cause of action against a third-party tortfeasor to which the carrier could be subrogated.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsSubsequent Injury FundLegal BeneficiaryDeath BenefitsSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeCar AccidentThird-Party LiabilityInsurance Carrier
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,744 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