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
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2008

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sara Care Child Care Center, Inc.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company appealed two summary judgment orders and a final judgment in favor of its insured, Sara Care Child Care Center, Inc., and employee Martha Martinez. The core issue was whether Sara Care's workers' compensation policy was extended due to Texas Mutual's alleged failure to comply with statutory cancellation notice requirements, thus covering Ms. Martinez's injury. The Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel and the trial court affirmed coverage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding judicial review of the Appeals Panel decision, Sara Care's common law claims (breach of contract, promissory estoppel), and the attorney's fee award. However, the court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment on Sara Care's statutory claims (Texas Insurance Code and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act) and the 'knowingly' finding, stating a fact issue remained on whether coverage liability was 'reasonably clear' for these claims.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy NonrenewalStatutory Notice RequirementsSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court DecisionBreach of ContractTexas Insurance Code ViolationsDTPA ViolationsAttorney's FeesJudicial Review
References
30
Case No. 08-08-00192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2010

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Sara Care Child Care Inc. and Martha Martinez

This case involves an appeal by Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) against Sara Care Child Care Center, Inc. and Martha Martinez, challenging summary judgment orders and a final judgment. The core dispute revolves around workers' compensation insurance coverage for an employee's work-related injury, which TMI denied based on policy expiration. The appeals panel and trial court found TMI liable due to its failure to comply with Texas Labor Code Section 406.008 notice requirements for policy cancellation or nonrenewal, extending Sara Care's coverage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding TMI's judicial review petition and its liability for common law claims and attorney's fees. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment concerning Sara Care's statutory claims under the Texas Insurance Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as a fact issue remained regarding whether TMI's coverage liability was "reasonably clear," impacting the "knowingly" finding for additional damages.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy NonrenewalSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelAttorney's FeesJudicial Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lavender v. Hofer

This personal injury case originated from an intersection collision resulting in the death of June Hofer. The initial defendant, Robert W. Springate, passed away, leading to his daughter, Sharon Lavender, being substituted as his personal representative. The core issues on appeal involved the recovery of punitive damages against the deceased tort-feasor's estate and the appellees' (June Hofer's parents) entitlement to damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship. The appellate court determined that punitive damages are not recoverable against a deceased tort-feasor's estate, reasoning that the purposes of punishment and deterrence cease upon death. However, the court affirmed the award for mental anguish and loss of companionship, citing a recent Texas Supreme Court decision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesSurvival StatuteMental AnguishLoss of CompanionshipDeceased Tort-feasor EstateAppellate ReviewDamages Award
References
63
Case No. 05-12-01407-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2015

Christian Care Centers, Inc. v. Rebecca O'Banion and Janis L. Wood, Individually and as Personal Representatives of tEH Estate of J.D. Richmond

Christian Care Centers, Inc. (CCC) appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Rebecca O’Banion and Janis L. Wood, as personal representatives of J.D. Richmond's estate. Richmond died after falling on a drainage grate at a CCC facility. The plaintiffs sued for negligence, alleging unsafe conditions and failure to warn. The jury found both CCC and Richmond 50% negligent and awarded damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the dangerous condition, foreseeability of death, and compensable mental anguish, and no abuse of discretion in submitting Richmond's negligence or denying gross negligence claims.

Premises LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathComparative NegligenceMental Anguish DamagesForeseeabilityDrainage Grate HazardAssisted Living FacilityElderly Care
References
52
Case No. 04-06-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2008

Sylvia Casas, Ind. Substantively Consolidated Bankruptcy Estates of Fountain View, Inc. as Successor to Summit Care Corporation, Summit Care Texas, L.P. D/B/A Comanche Trail Nursing Center and Summit Care Management Texas and Robert Gundling, Ind. v. Rosamarie Paradez, as the Administrator and Heir at Law of the Estate of Tranquilino Mendoza

This case involves a medical malpractice survival action initiated by Rosamarie Paradez, daughter of the deceased Tranquilino Mendoza, against Sylvia Casas, Robert Gundling, and the consolidated bankruptcy estates of Fountain View, Inc. (successor to Summit Care Corp. and Summit Care Texas, L.P., operators of Comanche Trail Nursing Center). Mendoza, an 81-year-old nursing home resident, suffered severe injuries after being beaten by a violent roommate, allegedly due to the appellants' negligence. The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the denial of new trial motions, sufficiency of damages, excessive awards, and the application of damages caps. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the damages awarded for pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment, and finding no error in the application of the damages cap or the finding of negligence against Gundling.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePersonal InjurySurvival ActionAppellate ReviewJury ArgumentDamages CapFactual SufficiencyMental AnguishPhysical Impairment
References
35
Case No. 2015-08-0326
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2016

Miller, Linda v. We Care Services/Comfort Keepers

Linda Miller, an employee of Comfort Keepers, requested an expedited hearing for medical and temporary disability benefits for an alleged injury to her arms. She claimed the injury occurred around April 12, 2015, while turning a bed-ridden client as a home health care professional. The employer, Comfort Keepers, and the carrier, Accident Fund Ins. Co., disputed the causation of the injury and its date. Judge Allen Phillips found that Ms. Miller did not provide sufficient medical expert opinion to establish that her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Consequently, the Court denied her request for benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationEmployment InjuryHome Health Care ProfessionalRepetitive Motion InjuryWrist PainCervical Strain
References
7
Case No. 14-07-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

Latoya Basey v. Davita Inc., D/B/A Total Renal Care, Nelda Boatwright and Fresenius Medical Care Holding Inc., D/B/A Fresenius Medical Care North America D/B/A Northwest Houston Dialysis, and Biomedical Applications of Texas, Inc.

Latoya Basey appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in a disability discrimination and tort case against her former employer, DaVita, Inc., and potential employer, Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Basey claimed DaVita fired her after a work-related back injury and that Fresenius refused to hire her due to her injury and prior discrimination charge. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. The appellate court affirmed, finding Basey failed to provide evidence of disability for her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and lacked evidence of causation for her retaliation claims.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawCausal LinkTexas Court of AppealsADAFailure to AccommodateEmployment Termination
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05756 [175 AD3d 134]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2019

Matter of People Care Inc. v. City of New York Human Resources Admin.

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which annulled the Human Resources Administration's (HRA) demand to recoup approximately $7 million in Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) funds from People Care Incorporated. The core issue was whether HRA possessed the authority to audit and recover these HCRA funds, established as a distinct Medicaid reimbursement program for worker recruitment and retention, from personal care service providers. The Court found that neither Public Health Law § 2807-v (1) (bb) nor the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health (DOH) and HRA delegated such auditing and recoupment powers to HRA. It rejected HRA's arguments that HCRA funds were merely a subset of general Medicaid funds subject to its existing contractual audit authority, or that DOH's actions constituted ratification of HRA's authority. Consequently, the Court upheld the injunction preventing HRA from recouping the disputed HCRA funds from People Care.

Administrative LawMedicaid ReimbursementAuditing AuthorityStatutory ConstructionInter-agency AgreementsHealthcare Reform ActPersonal Care ServicesGovernment ContractsCPLR Article 78Delegation of Power
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Eurocopter S.A.

Plaintiffs, the surviving widow and daughter of helicopter pilot Nathan Brown, filed suit after Brown was killed in a crash into an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Initially, the Court ruled that the Death On The High Sea Act (DOHSA) applied, limiting recovery to pecuniary losses. Plaintiffs then moved for the Court to apply DOHSA as amended by the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21). AIR 21 introduced provisions allowing nonpecuniary damages for deaths in commercial aviation accidents occurring beyond 12 nautical miles from shore after July 16, 1996. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion, determining that Brown’s helicopter flight, an on-demand air taxi service for profit, constituted a "commercial aviation accident" under the plain language of the amended DOHSA statute and consistent with Federal Aviation Regulations. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover nonpecuniary damages for loss of care, comfort, and companionship.

DOHSA AmendmentsCommercial Aviation AccidentNonpecuniary DamagesWrongful DeathOCSLAFederal Aviation RegulationsStatutory InterpretationHelicopter CrashMaritime LawGulf of Mexico
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,671 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