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. 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. PD-0292-15
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2015

Wolfe, Jennifer Banner

This legal brief concerns an appeal by Jennifer Banner Wolfe against her conviction for injury-to-a-child in Texas. The central issue is the reliability of expert testimony regarding Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) which was used to secure her conviction. Medical experts testified that the seven-month-old victim's severe brain and eye injuries, sustained while in Wolfe's care, were consistent with high-energy, non-accidental trauma, contradicting her explanation of a short fall. The State argues that the expert testimony, supported by extensive medical literature and the differential diagnosis methodology, was reliable and properly applied by the lower courts. Consequently, the State urges the Court of Criminal Appeals to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, which had previously upheld the trial court's ruling.

Abusive Head TraumaShaken Baby SyndromeExpert TestimonyForensic ScienceChild AbuseCriminal AppealsReliability of EvidenceMedical EvidenceDifferential DiagnosisPediatric Neurology
References
21
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
Nov 01, 1994

Hein v. Merck & Co., Inc.

The court considered a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Dr. Richard A. Palfin regarding hedonic damages. Applying the Daubert standard, the court evaluated the reliability and validity of his methodology, which included wage studies, consumer purchasing patterns, and surveys. The court found significant issues with the testability, peer review acceptance, error rate, and underlying assumptions of hedonic damages valuation. Citing other court decisions rejecting similar expert testimony, the court concluded that such testimony is unreliable, invalid, and not helpful to the jury. Therefore, the motion to exclude Dr. Palfin's testimony was granted.

Daubert StandardHedonic DamagesExpert TestimonyMotion in LimineReliability of EvidenceValidity of Scientific EvidenceFederal Rules of Evidence 702Economic ValuationsTort LawDamages Assessment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. v. Dongbu Hannong Chemical Co.

Plaintiff Cedar Petrochemicals, Inc. sued Dong-bu Hannong Chemical Co., Ltd. for breach of a sales contract involving phenol that discolored during shipment. Dong-bu filed motions seeking sanctions against Cedar for failing to preserve phenol samples and to exclude Cedar's expert evidence. The court denied Dong-bu's motions to exclude expert testimony, finding the experts qualified, their data sufficient, and their methodologies reliable. Furthermore, the court denied the motion for sanctions, concluding that Dong-bu was not prejudiced by the spoliation of samples due to ample opportunities for inspection and their failure to prove the relevance of further testing.

Breach of ContractPhenol DiscolorationSpoliation of EvidenceExpert Testimony AdmissibilityRule 26 DisclosureRule 37 SanctionsRule 702 Expert WitnessCommercial LitigationChemical ShippingJudicial Discretion
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Joseph Daniel Construction, Inc.

Royal Insurance Company of America, acting in subrogation for Patrick and Linda Magee, sued Joseph Daniel Construction for fire damage to the Magee's garage. The defendant, JDC, filed motions to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff's fire expert, Patrick J. McGinley, and for summary judgment. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, denied both motions. The decision focused on the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 702, applying the Daubert standard. The court found McGinley's testimony, based on NFPA 921 methodology, to be reliable and relevant, thus creating a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Expert Testimony AdmissibilityDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationSubrogationConstruction NegligenceNFPA 921Reliability of EvidenceRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfa Corp. v. OAO Alfa Bank

This Memorandum and Order addresses the defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's two expert witnesses in a trademark infringement case. The plaintiff, Alfa Corporation, alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition against Alfa Bank and Alfa Capital Markets (USA), Inc. The court, presided over by United States Magistrate Judge Francis, denied the motion. Expert Constantine Muravnik, a linguist, was permitted to testify on the transliteration of the Russian name "AЛЪФa-БaHK", with the court affirming the reliability of his internet sources and methodology. Expert James M. Sweitzer, an insurance executive, was permitted to testify on the convergence of insurance and banking industries, brand identity, and reinsurance, with the court finding him qualified and his opinions adequately supported, despite the defendants' objections.

Trademark LawExpert Witness AdmissibilityDaubert ChallengeFederal Rules of EvidenceLinguistics ExpertInsurance Industry ExpertBrand ConfusionFinancial ServicesMotion PracticeIntellectual Property
References
35
Case No. 7:13-cv-02553-NSR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2016

Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs Michael Goldemberg, Annie Le, and Howard Petlack initiated a class action against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., alleging deceptive labeling of "Aveeno Active Naturals" products. They claimed the "Active Naturals" label falsely implied natural ingredients despite the presence of synthetics, leading consumers to pay a price premium. The court granted class certification for New York, California, and Florida subclasses, with modifications to exclude products not purchased by the named plaintiffs and certain advertising claims. Additionally, the court denied Defendant's motion to preclude Plaintiffs' damages expert's report, deeming its methodology sufficiently reliable for the certification stage. This decision allows the case to proceed as a class action focused on the objective deceptiveness of the product packaging.

Class ActionConsumer ProtectionDeceptive LabelingFalse AdvertisingProduct LiabilityPrice PremiumClass CertificationRule 23Daubert MotionNew York Law
References
92
Showing 1-10 of 238 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