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. 13-06-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

in the Interest of V.A., V.A., and V.A., Minor Children

The Thirteenth District Court of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, affirmed the termination of a biological mother's parental rights to her three minor daughters, V.A.1, V.A.2, and V.A.3. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) initially sued the mother, alleging conditions endangering the children and the mother's failure to comply with court-ordered actions for family reunification under sections of the Texas Family Code. A jury found statutory grounds for termination and that it was in the children's best interest. The mother appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence for termination and the trial court's admission of alleged 'backdoor hearsay' testimony regarding drug use. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the mother failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan and that termination was in the children's best interest. The court also concluded there was no reversible error in the admission of the challenged testimony, as it was consistent with other admitted evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareTexas Family CodeFactual SufficiencyHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsUnstable Home EnvironmentSubstance Abuse
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E.V.R. II Associates, Ltd. v. Brundige

Riley T. Brundige, a security service employee, sued E.V.R. II Associates, Ltd., E.V.R. II Partnership, and Enclave Development Corporation (Enclave) for personal injuries sustained from a fall on their premises on April 18, 1987. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company intervened as the workers' compensation carrier for Brundige's employer, seeking subrogation for $47,293.73 in indemnity and medical payments. A jury found in favor of Brundige, awarding him $270,468.43, and Liberty Mutual was awarded $46,500.00 from Brundige's recovery, plus $22,000.00 in attorney's fees. Enclave appealed, raising points regarding the admission of workers' compensation benefits evidence, the denial of a separate trial for Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim, jury challenges, and the admission of post-accident repair photographs. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error.

Premises LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation SubrogationEvidentiary RulesSubsequent Remedial MeasuresJury SelectionPeremptory ChallengesAntagonism Between PartiesInterventionAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 07-08-0160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Hurd Oil Field Services, Inc.

Charlotte Welch, individually and as representative of the Estate of L.V. Welch, appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of Hurd Oil Field Service, Inc. The wrongful death suit alleged negligence, claiming Hurd's employee, Robert Browning, owed a duty of care to L.V. Welch, an inexperienced worker, and breached it, leading to L.V.'s death by heat exhaustion. The court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether Browning owed an assumed or other duty of care to L.V. Welch. The appellate court found that Browning did not assume such a duty, as his actions were limited to observing and reporting, not intervening, and that Texas law generally imposes no 'good Samaritan' duty. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimDuty of CareAssumed DutyGood Samaritan RuleHeat ExhaustionOil Field ServicesInexperienced WorkerCrane Operator
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. M2020-01480-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

State of Tennessee v. Joshua V. Lowe

Joshua V. Lowe appealed the Maury County Circuit Court's order of $52,000 in restitution, arguing the court failed to adequately consider his ability to pay during his six-year probationary sentence for theft. Lowe, an unemployed convicted felon, claimed his conviction significantly restricted his employment prospects in his prior fields of welding and coal mining, making the substantial restitution payments infeasible. However, the trial court had meticulously reviewed Lowe's financial history, including his prior high earnings and potential in cosmetology, concluding he possessed the capacity to pay the $723 monthly installments. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this judgment, determining the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and highlighted Lowe's option to petition for restitution adjustment if his financial situation genuinely warranted it. This decision underscores the court's balance between victim compensation and the defendant's future earning potential.

TheftRestitutionProbationCriminal AppealAbility to PayAbuse of DiscretionPecuniary LossSentencingFelony ConvictionEmployment Limitations
References
7
Case No. CV-07-2836
Regular Panel Decision

Tony Romo, Jr. v. State

L.V. Welch, an inexperienced worker for Pinnacle Technologies, Inc., died from heat exhaustion. His representative, Charlotte Welch, sued Hurd Oil Field Service, Inc., claiming Hurd's employee, Robert Browning, assumed a duty of care to L.V. but breached it by failing to intervene when L.V. exhibited irrational behavior. The trial court granted Hurd's motion for summary judgment, finding that Browning did not owe L.V. a duty of care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that Browning did not assume a duty of care to L.V., and therefore, Hurd was not liable for negligence.

NegligenceDuty of careSummary judgmentWrongful deathAssumed dutyGood SamaritanTexas lawAppellate reviewEmployer liabilityIndependent contractor
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 38,164 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