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. 2016-263 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee, appealed an order denying its summary judgment motion and granting Allstate Insurance Company's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion but reversing the grant of the defendant's cross-motion. The court ruled that Allstate failed to establish timely mailing of its denial of claim forms, thus precluding its defense. However, the plaintiff also failed to prove that the claims were not timely denied or that the denials were without merit, leading to the proper denial of its summary judgment motion.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate TermInsurance DefenseDenial of ClaimTimely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAssignee ClaimCivil Court OrderAffidavit Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colello v. Colello

Plaintiff initiated a divorce action, challenging a 1990 property distribution agreement as void due to alleged lack of consideration, breach of fiduciary duty, and absence of a meeting of the minds. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, voiding the agreement, and denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion, leading to the dismissal of the second through seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the validity of the agreement, finding sufficient consideration in mutual promises and rejecting claims of duress and fraud. It also determined that there was a meeting of the minds and that the agreement was not facially unconscionable, distinguishing between the agreement's initial validity and potential issues related to its subsequent performance or application.

Divorce LawPrenuptial AgreementPostnuptial AgreementSummary JudgmentContract ValidityConsideration (Contract Law)Fiduciary DutyDuressFraud in the InducementMeeting of the Minds
References
20
Case No. 03-94-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Leslie B. Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc. D/B/A Foodland

Leslie B. Hargraves appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Armco Foods, Inc., d/b/a Foodland. Hargraves filed a lawsuit for damages arising from an accident where she fell on wooden pallets at Foodland. The suit was filed two years and one day after the incident, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment based on the two-year limitations period. Hargraves argued the limitations period should be tolled because she was of 'unsound mind' due to being groggy and disoriented from medication for two days following the accident. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that a minor, drug-induced mental impairment does not meet the criteria for 'unsound mind' as defined in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.001(a)(2) to toll the limitations period.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionUnsound MindLegal DisabilityDrug-Induced ImpairmentPersonal InjuryTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05011 [231 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Lebeau v. Meet Caregivers Inc.

Claimant Okina Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to her right leg and knee from an assault by a coworker. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of employment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over claimant's. The Board determined that no physical altercation occurred and that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Employment InjuryAssault ClaimCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWorkplace IncidentClaimant TestimonyEmployer InvestigationFactual Determination
References
8
Case No. SAL 95992 SAL 95993 SAL 97616
Regular
Feb 06, 2008

JOSE G. LIZARRAGA (DECEASED) vs. WATSONVILLE PRODUCE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether a binding compromise and release agreement was formed before the applicant's death. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the agreement was not "duly executed" as required by statute because the defendant had not signed it, and a Medicare set aside provision was still pending. The majority concluded that a complete meeting of the minds on all material aspects was lacking, making the WCJ's prior finding of a binding agreement erroneous.

Compromise and ReleaseDuly ExecutedMedicare Set AsideBinding AgreementMeeting of the MindsLabor Code Section 5003Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ2528455
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

MARIA FRANCISCO vs. CALIFORNIA RAIN COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order that approved a stipulation settling their lien for $50 out of $1,325. The lien claimant argued mutual mistake of fact, claiming they lacked a complete itemization of charges and there was no meeting of the minds. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimant failed to demonstrate mutual mistake and instead appeared to seek relief from their own unilateral mistake. The Board also noted the lien claimant attached already-filed exhibits to their petition, warning of potential sanctions for repeated rule violations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationStipulations and Order to Pay Lien ClaimantMutual Mistake of FactMeeting of the MindsTimelinessPetition for ReconsiderationGood CauseUnilateral Mistake
References
2
Case No. E2002-02176-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2003

Anne Strickland v. Daniel Cartwright

Anne Strickland sued Daniel Cartwright seeking the return of a $170,000 payment made towards a restaurant purchase/lease, alleging no written agreement was finalized and the premises were in poor condition. Cartwright counterclaimed for an additional $80,000, asserting the initial $250,000 was a nonrefundable fee. The Trial Court awarded Strickland $138,000, finding a 'Lease with Option' despite a lack of mutual assent. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the $138,000 judgment. The appellate court agreed there was no enforceable contract due to a 'no meeting of the minds' but upheld the damage calculation as a fair quantum meruit compensation for Strickland's six-month occupancy.

Contract disputeOral agreementRestaurant leaseOption to purchaseUnenforceable contractMeeting of the mindsQuantum meruitUnjust enrichmentCommercial real estateDamages
References
13
Case No. 03-08-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Matl Construction Company F/K/A Stewart-Matl, Ltd. And Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Jim Connelly Masonry, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The core issue is whether Matl Construction Company and Jim Connelly Masonry, Inc. (JCM) had formed a subcontract that included an arbitration agreement. The district court had impliedly found no such agreement was formed. The dissent argues that the majority erred by not applying the correct no-evidence standard of review to the district court's implied finding. It contends that evidence supports the district court's conclusion that there was no 'meeting of the minds' regarding the material terms of the subcontract, particularly due to JCM's unaccepted attachment. Therefore, the dissent concludes that the district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration should be affirmed.

arbitration agreementcontract formationsubcontract disputedissenting opinionTexas Court of Appealsimplied findings of factstandard of reviewmeeting of the mindsmotion to compel arbitrationTexas contract law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strickland v. Cartwright

The case concerns a dispute between Anne Strickland and Daniel Cartwright regarding an unwritten agreement for the lease and potential purchase of a restaurant in Tennessee. Strickland paid an initial sum of $170,000 and monthly rent but vacated the premises due to alleged defects, seeking a refund. Cartwright counterclaimed for an unpaid balance of a $250,000 nonrefundable payment. The Trial Court found no mutual assent for an enforceable contract but awarded Strickland $138,000, offsetting her payments with a reasonable rental value for Cartwright's property usage. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concurring there was no meeting of the minds, and upheld the equitable award based on quantum meruit.

contract disputeoral agreementreal estatelease optionquantum meruitunjust enrichmentappellate courtmeeting of the mindscontract enforceabilitybusiness acquisition
References
12
Case No. E2016-01206-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2017

James R. Goan v. Billy B. Mills

Plaintiff James R. Goan's mail delivery vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Billy B. Mills. James R. Goan and his wife, Judy Goan, sued Mills. During settlement negotiations, the Plaintiffs offered to settle for $100,000, the limits of the Defendant's insurance policy, which the Defendant accepted. Over a year later, the Defendant filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, which the Plaintiffs opposed, arguing there was no meeting of the minds and no enforceable agreement. The trial court enforced the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding a valid and enforceable settlement agreement between the parties.

Settlement Agreement EnforcementContract LawInsurance Policy LimitsUninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristMotor Vehicle AccidentWorkers' Compensation SubrogationOffer and AcceptanceAppellate ReviewTennessee Civil Procedure
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,841 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