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. 05-20-00994-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Kenneth Henry v. Marc A. Notzon and Law Office of Marc A. Notzon, P.C.

Kenneth Henry sued Marc A. Notzon and his law office for breach of fiduciary duty, alleging that Notzon's undisclosed communications with Henry's employer, Time Warner Cable (TWC), led to Henry's termination. Henry, a TWC employee, was involved in a severe accident while driving a company truck. Notzon, who had a long-standing relationship with TWC, represented both Henry and TWC regarding the accident. The federal courts previously ruled that Henry's termination was due to his causing a severe, avoidable accident, not discrimination or retaliation. The current court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Notzon, applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of causation for Henry's termination had already been litigated and decided in the federal lawsuit. The court also rejected Henry's claim for actual damages and fee forfeiture, noting that TWC's worker's compensation administrator paid Notzon's fees, not Henry.

Collateral EstoppelBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCausationWrongful TerminationDisability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFifth CircuitTexas Court of Appeals
References
22
Case No. E2023-01643-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2024

Keetly Marc v. Jackson Eck, D.O.

Keetly Marc sued Dr. Jason C. Eck, D.O., alleging health care liability after a spinal surgery was performed at the wrong level. The Circuit Court for Hamilton County granted summary judgment to Dr. Eck, D.O., asserting that the statute of limitations had run, as knowledge of the potential claim received by Marc's attorney during a separate workers' compensation case on November 10, 2020, imputed constructive notice to Marc. Marc appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed this judgment, holding that knowledge acquired by an attorney while representing a client solely in a workers' compensation matter, when a potential health care liability claim is beyond the scope of that representation, is not imputed to the client. The Court concluded that Marc's lawsuit, filed after she was actually informed of the issue between November 30 and December 4, 2020, was timely.

Healthcare LiabilityMedical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleAttorney-Client RelationshipScope of RepresentationImputed KnowledgeAgency LawSummary JudgmentSpinal Surgery
References
18
Case No. No. 44
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

The People v. Marc Mitchell

Marc Mitchell, the defendant, appealed his conviction for fraudulent accosting, arguing that the term 'accost' requires a physical, aggressive approach to a specific individual. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that dictionaries from the statute's enactment defined 'accost' as 'to approach,' 'speak to first,' or 'address.' The Court found the complaint sufficient, as Mitchell blocked a Manhattan sidewalk with milk crates, requiring pedestrians to walk around him, and asked passing pedestrians to 'Help the homeless,' while allegedly misrepresenting where donations would go. The Court concluded that his actions, including blocking the sidewalk and calling out, constituted accosting. The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad, potentially criminalizing protected speech, and that 'accost' implies a more assertive, targeted contact, which was not present in Mitchell's actions. The Appellate Term's order was affirmed.

fraudulent accostingstatutory interpretationNew York Court of Appealsmisdemeanor complaintfacial sufficiencyactus reusmens reaconfidence gamestreet swindlelegislative intent
References
58
Case No. 532194
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Marc Trombino

Claimant Marc Trombino, an iron worker, filed a workers' compensation claim in September 2016 for work-related lung conditions, including silicosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, naming FMB Inc. as his employer. The claim was initially indexed against Phoenix Insurance Co., then corrected to Liberty Insurance Corporation after an investigation. Liberty disputed coverage, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie evidence and established the claim, finding an occupational disease and permanent total disability. Liberty appealed, belatedly raising a lack of policy coverage for the work location. The Board remitted the matter for a hearing on coverage, during which Ace American Insurance Company was put on notice. The WCLJ and subsequently the Board invoked the doctrine of laches, barring Liberty from denying coverage due to its inexcusable delay in raising the defense and the resultant prejudice to Ace American. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseSilicosisChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseLaches DoctrineInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EvidencePermanent Total DisabilityMedical Expert Testimony
References
7
Case No. M2019-00529-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2020

Marc Douglas Swindle v. Karen Goodlow

Marc Douglas Swindle sustained injuries on his first day at a construction site, leading him to file a workers' compensation claim against the general contractor, A&M Builders, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed due to A&M's denial of employment. Swindle and his wife then initiated a tort action in circuit court against A&M, two subcontractors, and the property owner. The circuit court dismissed these claims, asserting a lack of jurisdiction due to the workers' compensation exclusive remedy doctrine, as Swindle's injuries undeniably occurred within the course and scope of employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, upholding that the workers' compensation system provides the sole remedy for such injuries and that the plaintiffs failed to establish any exception to this exclusivity.

Workplace InjuryConstruction AccidentWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineTort ClaimsNegligenceFraudMisrepresentationSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
9
Case No. CA 12-01962
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2013

NICOMETI, MARC A. v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC

Plaintiff Marc A. Nicometi commenced a common-law negligence and Labor Law action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site. The plaintiff, while installing insulation at an elevated level using stilts, alleged his stilts slipped on ice. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, agreeing that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied due to an elevation-related risk. However, the appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby denying the motion for partial summary judgment. Two justices dissented, arguing that plaintiff was not provided a proper safety device and his actions could not be the sole proximate cause.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardStilts AccidentIce on WorksiteSole Proximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. 14-16-00495-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2016

in Re Tom Thomas, Dan Sheehan and Marc Culp, Individually and as Successor to the Interest of Thomas, Sheehan & Culp, L.L.P

Relators Tom Thomas, Dan Sheehan, and Marc Culp, in their capacity as successors to the law firm Thomas Sheehan & Culp, LLP, initiated legal action against Legacy Trust Company, N.A., which serves as the court-appointed Receiver for the Article IV Trust. The core of their dispute revolves around the collection of a contingent fee. Initially filed in Dallas County, the lawsuit was subsequently transferred to Harris County Probate Court Number Two. Following this transfer, the Relators filed a Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings to circumvent discovery obligations, a motion that was granted on July 8, 2016. Legacy Trust Company, acting as the Real Party in Interest, has since filed a Motion to Reconsider the Order Granting this Emergency Stay, contending that the stay merely prolongs the litigation, unduly prejudices both Legacy and the trust's beneficiaries, and lacks compelling justification. Legacy asserts the necessity of ongoing discovery for the case's resolution and proposes that any concerns regarding the waiver of the Relators' plea in abatement could be addressed through a Rule 11 agreement. The motion urges the court to deny the Emergency Stay upon reconsideration.

Emergency StayMotion to ReconsiderProbate LawFiduciary DutyDiscovery DisputeAttorney FeesTrust LawReceiverAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
58
Case No. 13-06-227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2007

Denise Guzman and Tito Marines, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of David Marines, And Marc Rosenthal v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Diane Thiele

Marc G. Rosenthal appealed a $2,000 sanction imposed by the 126th District Court of Travis County, Texas, for "forum-shopping." Rosenthal had initially filed an application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Travis County, which was not granted by Judge Scott Jenkins, then non-suited the claims and re-filed the identical application in Cameron County, where it was granted. Texas Mutual Insurance Company subsequently moved for sanctions in Travis County, arguing Rosenthal's conduct constituted bad faith and abuse of judicial process. Judge Lora Livingston found Rosenthal's actions, particularly seeking a TRO from a second court after the first did not grant it, constituted improper forum-shopping and an abuse of the judicial process, reducing the initial $3,000 sanction to $2,000. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions, and overruled Rosenthal's appeal regarding venue and due process.

Forum shoppingSanctionsAbuse of processInherent court powerAppellate reviewTrial court discretionWorkers' compensationTemporary restraining orderNon-suitDue process
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 1982

Marion Coal Co. v. Marc Rich & Co. International, Ltd.

Marion Coal Company and Marc Rich and Co. International, Ltd. are embroiled in a dispute over whether they entered into an agreement to arbitrate a long-term steam coal supply contract. Marc Rich initiated a demand for arbitration, alleging a contract formed on February 11, 1981, and subsequently petitioned the court to compel arbitration. Marion denied the existence of a binding agreement and sought a temporary stay of arbitration, arguing that negotiations never concluded. The District Court found that material issues of fact exist regarding whether an arbitration clause was a customary condition in the coal trade and whether the parties agreed to such a term during an exchange of proposed contract drafts. Consequently, the court ordered a jury trial to resolve these factual questions, declining to grant either petition summarily.

Arbitration AgreementCoal Supply ContractTrade CustomUniform Commercial CodeContract FormationParol Evidence RuleFirm OfferJury Trial OrderedFactual DisputeNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Karasyk v. Marc Commodities Corp.

Philip Karasyk, a commodity futures trader, sued Marc Commodities Corp., a futures commission merchant, alleging fraudulent transfer of crude oil futures contracts into his account, violating the Commodity Exchange Act. Karasyk asserted fraud and negligence claims after suffering significant financial losses. The defendant moved to compel arbitration, dismiss for lack of particularity in fraud allegations (Rule 9(b)), and join Chicago Corp. (Rule 19(a)). The court denied arbitration, ruling NFA rules didn't mandate it for Karasyk as an Associate Member. However, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to meet Rule 9(b)'s pleading standards regarding fraud, granting leave for Karasyk to replead.

FraudCommodity Exchange ActFederal Arbitration ActRule 9(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedurePleading StandardsScienterIntent to DefraudFutures ContractsNational Futures AssociationMandatory Arbitration
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 43 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