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. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. State

This opinion, authored by Chief Justice Harbison, concurs that disability for a scheduled injury is based on loss of use rather than earning capacity. However, it dissents on the grounds that the workers' compensation claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The employee sustained a wrist fracture, received medical treatment, and wore a cast for weeks, yet waited twenty years to file a claim for permanent disability. The Chief Justice argues that the employee knew or should have known of a work-related injury and disability, even without precise information, and therefore the one-year statute of limitations should apply from the date of injury or last medical payment. The opinion references Taylor v. Clayton Mobile Homes, Inc. and Jones v. Home Indemnity Co. to support the argument against extending the statute of limitations for such a long period, especially when the injury was apparent from the beginning.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsScheduled InjuryPermanent DisabilityWrist FractureLatent InjuryKnowledge of InjuryMedical ExpensesTimeliness of ClaimJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1997

Andrews v. Johnson

Brenda Gail Andrews filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the Respondent moved to dismiss based on a one-year statute of limitations. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, determining that the new Habeas Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional bar. The recommendation also clarified that petitioners filing after the AEDPA's effective date of April 24, 1996, have a reasonable period, specifically one year, to commence their litigation. The District Court adopted this recommendation, denying the Respondent's motion to dismiss and instructing them to file an Answer within thirty days.

Habeas CorpusStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseJurisdictional BarAEDPAFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRetroactive ApplicationJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityFifth Circuit
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. 09-16-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency v. Ralph J. Gillis, Gillis Borchardt & Barthel LLP, Obain Associates Limited and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust

This appeal concerns Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency's (SRMPA) lawsuit against its former attorney, Ralph J. Gillis, and his firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud related to the 'Nisco Deal' and the 'Cambridge Project' energy initiatives. SRMPA accused Gillis of self-dealing and undisclosed personal financial gains from these projects. The trial court, following a jury verdict, denied SRMPA's claims regarding the Nisco Deal due to the statute of limitations, but awarded damages for Gillis's breach of fiduciary duty concerning the Cambridge Project. SRMPA appealed the denial of equitable relief, the limitations finding, and the quantum of damages, while Gillis, Obain, and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust filed cross-appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment across all contested issues.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent ConcealmentEnergy ProjectsAttorney MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsEquitable ReliefDisgorgementConstructive TrustDamagesRespondeat Superior
References
59
Case No. W2011-01807-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2012

Karim Skaan v. Federal Express Corporation

The case involves Karim Skaan's retaliatory discharge claim against Federal Express Corporation. Skaan injured his back twice and was terminated by FedEx pursuant to its medical leave policy, after exhausting his allowable medical leave. He subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging retaliatory discharge for his workers' compensation claim. FedEx sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred by a contractual six-month limitation period and that the termination was policy-based, not retaliatory. The trial court granted summary judgment on the merits of the retaliatory discharge claim but denied it based on the contractual limitation period. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of FedEx, holding that Skaan's lawsuit was time-barred by the six-month contractual limitation period in his employment agreement.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployment AgreementMedical Leave PolicyTime-Barred ClaimUnconscionability
References
26
Case No. 03-94-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Leslie B. Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc. D/B/A Foodland

Leslie B. Hargraves appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Armco Foods, Inc., d/b/a Foodland. Hargraves filed a lawsuit for damages arising from an accident where she fell on wooden pallets at Foodland. The suit was filed two years and one day after the incident, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment based on the two-year limitations period. Hargraves argued the limitations period should be tolled because she was of 'unsound mind' due to being groggy and disoriented from medication for two days following the accident. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that a minor, drug-induced mental impairment does not meet the criteria for 'unsound mind' as defined in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.001(a)(2) to toll the limitations period.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionUnsound MindLegal DisabilityDrug-Induced ImpairmentPersonal InjuryTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05907 [164 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (AWI), a subcontractor, and Whitestone Construction Corp. (Whitestone), a general contractor, over unpaid security services for public construction projects. Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI's action, citing a contractual six-month limitations period that it claimed began in April 2012. AWI appealed the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that the limitations period was unenforceable because Whitestone had stated that payment was contingent on the resolution of a separate prevailing wage class action. Citing precedent, the Appellate Division found that Whitestone's position nullified the contractual limitations period, as it created a scenario where AWI would be forced to sue for a claim that was not yet ripe. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying Whitestone's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Contractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSubcontractor PaymentPublic Construction ProjectCondition PrecedentAccrual of Cause of ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewRipeness of ClaimIndemnity Provision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,104 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