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. ADJ3674520
Regular
Mar 29, 2012

Linda Elachkar vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Chartis Insurance Services

This case involves supplemental attorney's fees awarded under Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review in *Northrup Grumman Corporation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding no reasonable basis for the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to award supplemental attorney's fees to the applicant, Linda Elachkar. The parties stipulated to a fee of $4,812.50, which the Board found to be reasonable.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandAppeals BoardStipulationAttorney's FeeNorthrop Grumman CorporationChartis Insurance Services
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05656 [174 AD3d 704]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

Matter of Linda H.A. (Belluci)

In this case, Linda H.A. appealed a Supreme Court judgment that appointed an independent guardian for her person and property under Mental Hygiene Law article 81. The proceeding was initiated by the Executive Director of North Shore University Hospital, alleging Linda H.A. was an incapacitated person requiring a guardian. Following a hearing, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding clear and convincing evidence of Linda H.A.'s incapacity. The court based its decision on testimony revealing her inability to provide for personal needs and property management, delusional beliefs, a history of eviction, and refusal of medical and housing assistance.

GuardianshipIncapacitationMental Hygiene Law Article 81Appellate ReviewPersonal Needs ManagementProperty ManagementClear and Convincing EvidenceDelusional BeliefsEviction HistoryRefusal of Care
References
7
Case No. 05-17-01187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Linda Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC.

This case involves an appeal from a jury trial where Dallas Performance, LLC (DP) and Taylor Sims prevailed against Linda Douglas. Linda had sued DP for conversion, wrongful detention of her vehicle, and other claims after DP retained her car due to unpaid repair and storage fees. The jury found in favor of DP and Sims, awarding them $9,000.00 for breach of contract regarding storage fees and $3,200.00 in quantum meruit for motor work. The appellees, DP and Sims, argue that the trial court's judgment, which was entered in accordance with the jury's findings, should be affirmed. They assert their right to a possessory lien on the vehicle and that Linda agreed to the storage fee policy and additional work performed on her car.

Motor Vehicle RepairPossessory LienStorage FeesQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesConversionWrongful DetainerDallas PerformanceLinda Douglas
References
25
Case No. 03-03-00621-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2006

Linda Delgado, Individually and D/B/A Del-Kleen, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

Linda Delgado appealed a district court's default judgment in a case where she and others were sued by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund for allegedly conspiring to fraudulently obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage and evade premium payments. Her appeal raised issues regarding lack of notice for her attorney's withdrawal and the trial setting, as well as the sufficiency of evidence for the civil conspiracy finding. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that despite procedural errors in the attorney's withdrawal, Linda received constructive notice of the withdrawal and the trial. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding of civil conspiracy. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment against Linda Delgado.

Default JudgmentAttorney WithdrawalConstructive NoticeWorkers' Compensation FraudCivil ConspiracyLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPost-Answer DefaultAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 08-24-00217-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2025

Charles Mais, Jr. v. Linda Marie Mais

Linda Marie Mais sued her uncle, Charles Mais, Jr., alleging fraud, breach of a fiduciary relationship, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) concerning a property purchase. A jury found in Linda's favor, imposing a constructive trust on the real property and awarding $200,000 for the IIED claim. Charles appealed, challenging the IIED judgment and the imposition of a constructive trust. The appellate court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment on the IIED claim due to legally insufficient evidence of outrageous conduct. However, the court affirmed the imposition of the constructive trust, acknowledging Charles conceded a breach of fiduciary duty.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Constructive TrustProperty DisputeReal Estate LawFraudUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
19
Case No. 06-13-00028-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2013

in the Estate of Linda J. Velvin

Appellant, attorney William Demond, appeals the trial court’s assessment of sanctions against him and its denial of attorneys’ fees for his services as attorney ad litem for C.A., a minor, regarding her interests in the Estate of Linda Joyce Velvin, deceased. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court lacked jurisdiction over most issues raised by Demond but had jurisdiction over the sanctions and ad litem attorneys' fees. It found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's assessment of sanctions against Demond for filing a frivolous and groundless motion to recuse, noting his failure to preserve certain complaints and sufficient evidence to support the finding of unnecessary delay. Regarding ad litem attorneys' fees, the court found Demond failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

SanctionsAttorney Ad LitemEstate LawAppellate ProcedureStandingRecusalAttorneys' FeesDue ProcessTexas Court of AppealsProbate Code
References
46
Case No. 03-97-00356-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1998

Linda Mae Lilly v. State

Linda Mae Lilly was convicted of injury to a child and appealed several conditions of her community supervision. She challenged conditions regarding psychological counseling, participation in a battered women's program, and limited visitation with the victim, arguing improper delegation of authority. The appellate court affirmed these conditions, finding them statutorily authorized or reasonable. However, the court sustained Lilly's challenge to a condition requiring her to pay additional court-appointed attorney fees directly to counsel, ruling this was not expressly authorized. The judgment was reformed to remove this unauthorized condition, and the conviction was affirmed as reformed.

Community SupervisionProbation ConditionsInjury to a ChildAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionDelegation of AuthorityCourt-Appointed Counsel FeesFamily ViolencePsychological CounselingVisitation Rights
References
19
Case No. 2023-03-5833
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2025

Mueller, Linda v. CSL Plasma

This case involves an employee, Linda Mueller, appealing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her employer, CSL Plasma. Mueller alleged shoulder and neck injuries from repetitive use. The employer denied the claim, citing late notice and lack of medical causation, supported by an expert medical review from Dr. Jeffrey Hazlewood who stated her condition was degenerative and not work-related. Mueller failed to present admissible evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the employer negated an essential element of the claim and the employee did not meet her burden to provide sufficient proof of medical causation.

Summary JudgmentMedical CausationRepetitive Use InjuryDegenerative Spine DiseaseShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryAffirmationEmployee AppealExpert Medical OpinionPro Se Representation
References
4
Case No. 07-03-0304-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2004

Linda Huddleston v. Jamie Lovvorn

Linda Huddleston appealed a judgment from the 223rd District Court of Gray County, which awarded Jamie Lovvorn $23,323.42 for personal injuries sustained in a collision. Huddleston argued the trial court erred by disregarding a jury finding that the ambulance driver, in which Lovvorn was a passenger, was 50% responsible for the accident. She also contended the court incorrectly refused to reduce medical expenses to the amount paid by the Texas Association of Counties. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the trial court's decision, citing precedents that restrict contribution claims against employers in third-party actions and noting the absence of a "sole cause" issue. The court further upheld the medical expense award due to the admission of evidence without objection and the appellant's failure to preserve error in the trial court.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationPersonal InjuryMedical ExpensesJury FindingsComparative ResponsibilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
8
Case No. 3-91-089-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1992

City of Austin v. Linda Janowski

The City of Austin appealed an order apportioning one-third of its workers' compensation subrogation recovery to the claimant's attorney, Terry Weldon, as attorney's fees. Linda Janowski, injured during her employment with the City, received $28,618.15 in benefits. Capital Metro, liable for Janowski's injuries, settled for $95,000. Weldon, Janowski's attorney, successfully negotiated the settlement and sought attorney's fees on the City's subrogation amount and relief from future medical expenses. The trial court awarded Weldon $12,874.76, including one-third of the subrogation recovery and one-third of the $10,000 present value of future medical expenses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in apportioning all attorney's fees to Weldon and including future medical expenses in the calculation, based on the applicable former statute.

SubrogationWorkers' CompensationAttorney's FeesApportionmentTexas Tort Claims ActSettlement NegotiationFuture Medical ExpensesAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 250 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