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. 07-0783
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Irving W. Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital

Irving W. Marks, a patient recovering from back surgery at St. Luke’s Hospital, fell when the bed's footboard came loose. He sued the hospital, alleging ordinary negligence and health care liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas examined whether the claim regarding the defective footboard was a health care liability claim under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIIA), which would require an expert report. The Court concluded that the claim concerning the defective hospital bed footboard was ordinary negligence, not a health care liability claim, as it did not involve medical or professional judgment. However, Marks's other claims alleging negligent care and supervision were deemed health care liability claims. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case to the trial court, and denied Marks's request for a grace period to file an expert report for the health care liability claims due to insufficient evidence of accident or mistake.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligencePremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimOrdinary NegligenceExpert ReportMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPatient Fall
References
25
Case No. 03-01-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2002

John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C./Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association/John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C.

This case involves cross-appeals from a judgment by the District Court of Travis County. John W. Berkel and John W. Berkel, P.C. (Berkel) sued the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) and a receiver, seeking to enforce a contract for $6,306, which represented a previously approved "covered claim" for legal services. The trial court awarded Berkel the $6,306 but denied claims for statutory attorney's fees, prejudgment, and postjudgment interest. TPCIGA appealed the $6,306 award, arguing the claim was not a covered claim, but the appellate court affirmed this part, holding the Receiver's prior determination was binding. Berkel appealed the denial of attorney's fees and interest, and the appellate court reversed and remanded this part for further proceedings.

Insurance LawReceivershipImpaired InsurerCovered ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestSummary JudgmentContract Enforcement
References
9
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00600
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2020

Matter of Sean CJ Ivan W. (Danica W.)

This case concerns an appeal by the mother, Danica W., from an order terminating her parental rights to her child, Noel Sean CJ Ivan W. The Family Court, Queens County, found that the mother permanently neglected the child and transferred guardianship and custody to Little Flower Children and Family Services of New York and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for adoption. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the petitioner demonstrated diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. However, the mother failed to adequately plan for the child's future despite these efforts. The appellate court also agreed that terminating parental rights and freeing the child for adoption was in the child's best interests, rejecting a suspended judgment.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectChild WelfareAdoptionFamily LawAppellate DivisionGuardianshipDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildSocial Services Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ashley W.

The children Ashley W and Wrenggor W, natives of Haiti, appealed a Family Court, Nassau County order denying their guardianship petition by their paternal aunt, Verdele F, and their motion for special immigrant juvenile status. The Family Court's denial without a hearing was based on the uncle's past conviction. The appellate court dismissed Verdele F.'s appeal but reversed the order concerning Ashley W and Wrenggor W. The case was remitted for a hearing and new determination, as the uncle's criminal record was deemed not an automatic bar.

GuardianshipSpecial Immigrant Juvenile StatusFamily Court ActChild WelfareParental AbuseChild NeglectAbandonmentBest Interests of the ChildCriminal RecordAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02801
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2017

Matter of Zachariah W. v. Dominique W.

The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) filed a child neglect petition against Dominique W. four days after she gave birth to Zachariah W. The petition alleged neglect after hospital personnel discovered the mother's limited income and housing situation, leading to the child's emergency removal without providing the mother with housing information or supplies. The Family Court, Kings County, found the mother neglected the child. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The appellate court concluded that ACS failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother did not provide adequate care, food, clothing, and shelter, or that there was imminent danger of impairment to the child, which is a prerequisite for a neglect finding.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceImminent DangerParental CareChild WelfareEmergency RemovalHousing Assistance
References
7
Case No. 2-07-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. D/B/A Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella v. Joan Cutting

This case involves an appeal by Mark Rotella Custom Homes, Inc. d/b/a Benchmark Custom Homes and Mark David Rotella (Appellants) against Joan Cutting (Appellee). Appellants challenged the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment and deny their motion for a new trial, primarily arguing a lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that evidence of selective refusal of service established constructive notice. The court also upheld Mark Rotella's joint and several liability, citing his personal guarantee in the construction contract and his liability for tortious acts as an agent. Appellants' claim regarding a lack of fraudulent intent was overruled due to insufficient briefing.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConstructive NoticeService of ProcessJoint and Several LiabilityCorporate Agent LiabilityFraudulent IntentAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02831 [238 AD3d 1302]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2025

Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC

This case involves an appeal by W & W Steel Erectors LLC and its workers' compensation carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board denied the carrier's request to reopen the claim concerning posthumous wage-loss benefits for the minor son of the decedent, Michael Coyle. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits to the son, relying on Matter of Green, and the carrier failed to seek administrative review. After the Court of Appeals reversed Green, the carrier sought to reopen the claim, but the Board denied this request due to the lack of a timely administrative appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening of the claim in the interest of justice.

Workers' CompensationWage-loss benefitsPermanent partial disabilityPosthumous benefitsReopening claimAdministrative reviewAbuse of discretionFinality of decisionAppellate DivisionCourt of Appeals reversal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1992

In re Latisha W.

This case involves an appeal by a mother and father from a Family Court order that found they had abused their children, Latisha W. and Samura W., in a child protective proceeding. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Commissioner of Social Services had established child abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision relied on the detailed, cross-corroborated out-of-court statements made by both children regarding the abuse. Further corroboration came from a social worker's testimony, which noted the children's consistent statements, bed-wetting, and inappropriate sexual behavior. Additionally, a prima facie case of abuse was established against the mother for failing to protect the children and warning them not to disclose the abuse, which she failed to rebut.

Child abuseParental neglectCorroborated statementsFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate reviewChild witnessesPreponderance of evidenceKings County Family CourtOut-of-court statementsSocial worker testimony
References
3
Case No. 09-23-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2024

Nicholas Marteny v. Brent W. Coon and Brent W. Coon, PC D/B/A Brent Coon & Associates

Nicholas Marteny appeals for the second time the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Brent W. Coon and Brent W. Coon, PC d/b/a Brent Coon & Associates (BCA) in a legal malpractice case. Marteny argued the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on lack of duty and damages, and abused its discretion by denying his motion to compel and motion for continuance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the law-of-the-case doctrine inapplicable due to an expanded evidentiary record. It further determined that BCA successfully negated the damages element of Marteny's claim, as purely moratorium-related losses were deemed non-compensable by the MDL court and other claims programs.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentLaw-of-the-CaseDutyDamagesDiscovery DisputeMotion to CompelMotion for ContinuanceAttorney-Client RelationshipDeepwater Horizon
References
38
Case No. No. 07-0783
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital

Irving Marks sued St. Luke's Hospital after falling from a bed with a defective footboard during recovery from back surgery. The core legal issue was whether his claim constituted a 'health care liability claim' under the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIIA) or an ordinary premises liability claim. The Court of Appeals initially found it to be ordinary negligence but later reversed its stance. The Supreme Court of Texas, in this opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the defective bed claim, concluding it was ordinary negligence and not a health care liability claim. However, it affirmed the dismissal of Marks's other claims (negligent supervision and staff training) as health care liability claims, due to his failure to file a timely expert report, finding no evidence of accident or mistake. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion regarding the ordinary negligence claim.

Medical MalpracticePremises LiabilityHospital NegligenceStatutory InterpretationHealth Care Liability ClaimOrdinary NegligenceExpert ReportMedical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActTexas LawCourt Procedure
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,377 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