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

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC. sued defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) for overdue first-party no-fault benefits following a brain MRI performed on Abdelghani Kinane. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was premature because Elmont allegedly failed to respond to verification requests, thereby tolling NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. Elmont countered with an affidavit from its billing supervisor, Brijkumar Yamraj, and a certificate of mailing, proving the requested MRI films and information were sent to NYCMFIC on November 12, 2008. The court found Elmont's proof of mailing sufficient to establish a response, thus denying NYCMFIC's motion and subsequently granting summary judgment to Elmont upon searching the record.

No-fault insuranceVerification requestsSummary judgmentProof of mailingMedical benefitsInsurance claims processTolling of time limitMotor vehicle accidentRadiology fee scheduleBusiness records
References
24
Case No. 13-13-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2015

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. v. Guillermo R. Pechero M.D.Ruben D. Pechero M.D. Maplestar Orthopedics, P. A.

Nolana Open MRI Center, Inc. appealed a judgment rendered against it following a bench trial. The appellees, Guillermo R. Pechero, M.D., Ruben D. Pechero, M.D., and Maplestar Orthopedics, P.A., filed a motion to show authority, contending Nolana's counsel lacked the authority to bring the appeal. The underlying dispute involved the sale of Nolana's assets, patient referrals, lease agreements, and counterclaims for fraudulent inducement, conversion, and breach of contract. A key issue was a 50-50 ownership split in Nolana between Jose Castro and Agustin Garcia, where Castro had settled with defendants and granted them limited power of attorney to oppose litigation, while Garcia sought to authorize the appeal. The Court of Appeals, reviewing the trial court's findings, concluded that Nolana's counsel lacked standing due to the unresolved ownership conflict regarding the authority to initiate the appeal.

Appellate ProcedureJurisdictionMotion to Show AuthorityCorporate AuthorityShareholder DisputeLimited Power of AttorneyBreach of ContractTheft Liability ActFraudulent InducementTortious Interference
References
30
Case No. 15-24-00118-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2024

Aspire Power Ventures, LP v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Thomas Gleeson, Lori Cobos, Jimmy Glotfelty, Kathleen Jackson, and Courtney Hjaltman

This case involves Aspire Power Ventures, LP appealing the dismissal of its lawsuit against the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), and various commissioners. Aspire challenged the legality of the ERCOT Contingency Reserve Service (ECRS) protocols, arguing they illegally restrain electricity supply, violate the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) by compelling generators to withhold power, and were implemented without adhering to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements. The district court granted the defendants' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing Aspire's claims for lack of jurisdiction. Aspire seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the ECRS rules are invalid and cause substantial, irreparable harm to market participants and Texas consumers due to inflated electricity prices and increased price volatility.

Electricity MarketEnergy RegulationAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility Regulatory ActERCOTPUCTRulemaking ChallengeJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEnergy Prices
References
7
Case No. 01-01-00749-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Danny R. Danny Collinsworth v. Eller Media Company

Daniel R. Collinsworth, the appellant, sued multiple appellees including Eller Media Company, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and others, following a personal injury sustained from a 20-foot fall while working on an elevated billboard sign due to a broken ratchet strap. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Media defendants, Reliable Electric Products, and Weisner Steel Products, Inc., based on arguments such as the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, statute of limitations, and lack of evidence linking them to the defective product. Collinsworth appealed, contending that there was insufficient time for discovery and that he was prejudiced by a lost record. The appellate court found Collinsworth waived the discovery argument by not filing appropriate motions and that the allegedly lost record was, in fact, included in the supplemental clerk's record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExemptionStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityBillboard AccidentDiscoveryEvidence SufficiencyTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. W2010-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2011

Charles Roach and Joyce Roach v. Dixie Gas Company Ben Thomas Williams, Jr., Individually and as Owner and Manager of Dixie Gas Company Semstream, L.P. Santie Wholesale Oil Company, A Division of Blue Rhino Reliable Propane and John Does 1 through 10

Charles and Joyce Roach sued Dixie Gas Company and Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr. for damages resulting from a propane explosion. The Roaches claimed numerous physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, hearing loss, and a speech disorder. While defendants admitted liability for property damage, they disputed causation for personal injuries, arguing the Roaches were not at the scene during the explosion. After a jury trial awarded zero damages, the Roaches appealed, challenging the admissibility of medical examinations, expert testimony, and deposition testimony, and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the Rule 35 examinations or the admissibility of expert testimony, and concluded that material evidence supported the jury's verdict of zero damages.

Propane ExplosionPersonal InjuryEmotional DistressPTSDDepressionHearing LossSpeech DisorderMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Makofski Ex Rel. Makofski

Justice Charles W. Seymore's dissenting opinion criticizes the majority's approach to expert testimony reliability in a case involving plaintiffs and Exxon. Seymore argues that the majority erred by disregarding the pretrial Robinson hearing, where the trial court, acting as a gatekeeper, assessed the reliability of expert evidence. He emphasizes that reliability is a question of admissibility for the court, not a jury issue, and that evidence from the pretrial hearing, even if not re-presented at trial, should be considered on appeal. Seymore contends that the incomplete appellate record should have led to a presumption that the trial court's decision to admit the experts' testimony was valid. He concludes that the majority's outcome, which resulted in two plaintiffs keeping their verdict and four collecting nothing, stems from a misapplication of appellate rules and a failure to consider the full record pertinent to reliability, advocating for an affirmance of the trial court's judgment for all plaintiffs.

Expert Testimony AdmissibilityGatekeeper RoleRobinson HearingAppellate Record SufficiencyReliability of Scientific EvidenceCausation in Toxic TortTexas Rules of EvidenceJudicial Review StandardsDissenting OpinionTrial Court Discretion
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. J.A.

This case addresses the extent to which a psychiatrist can rely on out-of-court materials, such as presentence reports and parole records, to establish a history of sex offenses for a "mental abnormality" diagnosis in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The petitioner's expert psychiatrist diagnosed respondent Mr. A. with pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., and antisocial personality disorder, relying on various criminal history documents. The diagnosis of pedophilia specifically hinged on two 1961 incidents, whose underlying facts were challenged by the respondent as unreliable hearsay. The court analyzed the professional reliability and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding that documents supporting 1980 and 1992 convictions were reliable due to corroboration. However, the reports for the 1961 convictions were deemed unreliable, lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, contemporaneity, and unchallengeable contents. Consequently, the court disregarded and excluded the expert's conclusion of pedophilia, as it was solely based on these unreliable hearsay documents, while affirming the reliance on other, more reliable evidence.

Mental Hygiene Law Article 10Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA)Expert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceProfessional Reliability ExceptionBusiness Records ExceptionPsychiatric DiagnosisPedophiliaPresentence ReportsParole Records
References
33
Case No. LBO 0341721
Regular
Jul 17, 2008

CATHERINE JORDAN vs. COUNTRY VILLA TERRACE, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior order to defer the lien of Reliable Medical Supplies, LLC. The WCJ had dismissed the lien, mistakenly believing it belonged to a suspended corporation, "Reliable Medical Supplies, Inc." The Board found that Reliable Medical Supplies, LLC is an active, in-good-standing entity and remanded the matter for determination of its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReliable Medical Supplies LLCReliable Medical Supplies Inc.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderDurable Medical EquipmentSuspended CorporationLimited Liability CompanySecretary of State
References
1
Case No. ADJ3701295 (AHM 0146448)
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

PAULA GUEVARA vs. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKET, ZENITH ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Max MRI. While affirming the denial of Max MRI's lien claim for lack of evidence, the Board vacated the sanctions imposed. The Board found that Max MRI was denied due process regarding the sanctions, as the issue was not properly noticed or heard. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a decision on costs and sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantMax MRIFrivolous lienSanctionsDue processMedical Provider NetworkCompromise and ReleaseFindings and Order
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 237 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