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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06370 [243 AD3d 1087]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

Matter of Rorapaugh v. New Penn Motor Express LLC

Claimant Sally Rorapaugh's spouse died in a work-related motor vehicle accident. She settled a third-party action for $5.9 million net, prompting the workers' compensation carrier to argue its consent was required and to discontinue payments. The Workers' Compensation Board found the carrier's consent unnecessary due to the settlement exceeding benefits and calculated a lien reduction, concluding the carrier owed claimant an additional $113,631.55. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed that carrier consent was not needed for the large settlement. However, it reversed the Board's lien reduction calculation, ruling the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the equitable apportionment of legal expenses, which must be addressed by the court where the third-party action was filed. The case was remitted for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlementCarrier ConsentLien ReductionEquitable ApportionmentJurisdictionMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory AmountFuture Benefits
References
6
Case No. 03-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

Randy Pretzer Scott Bossier Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. D/B/A Bossier Country v. the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board against Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. (collectively "Bossier") for violations of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code, specifically fraudulent practices that led to $180,000 in civil penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's authority to sanction non-licensees for new vehicle sales violations under section 4.06(a)(5). However, it reversed the district court's finding of Board jurisdiction over used vehicle sales violations of section 4.06(a)(5) occurring before June 8, 1995. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's power to prospectively limit Pretzer's employment in the motor vehicle industry. The case was remanded to the district court for redetermination of civil penalties consistent with the opinion, while Bossier's other arguments regarding notice, standard of proof, and constitutional challenges were overruled.

Motor Vehicle Code ViolationsFraudulent PracticesCivil PenaltiesStatutory AuthorityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUsed Vehicle SalesNew Vehicle SalesLicense RevocationDue Process
References
49
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 03-07-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

in Re General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division and Austin Chevrolet, Inc. D/B/A Munday Chevrolet/Geo

This original proceeding involves the district court's plenary power over a suit inadvertently dismissed for want of prosecution while abated. The underlying suit by Landmark against General Motors and Austin Chevrolet was abated in 2001. In 2003, the district court inadvertently dismissed the suit. In 2007, the trial court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the suit. Relators General Motors and Austin Chevrolet sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the 2007 order was void because it was issued after the expiration of the district court's plenary power. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ, holding that the 2003 dismissal was not void, and thus the district court's plenary power had expired, making the 2007 order void.

mandamusplenary powerdismissal for want of prosecutionabatementsubject-matter jurisdictionvoid ordersjudicial discretionadministrative remediesTexas appellate procedurecivil procedure
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc.

This case, heard by the Tennessee Supreme Court, reviewed a judgment from the Court of Appeals which had reversed jury verdicts for the plaintiffs and dismissed their suit against Ozark Motor Lines, Inc. The plaintiffs, former team truck drivers for Ozark, were discharged after refusing to drive a truck without adequate time for a safety inspection, citing violations of the Tennessee Motor Carriers Act. The Court of Appeals found no basis for a public policy exception to the employment at-will law. This Court, however, reinstated the trial court's judgment, affirming that retaliatory discharge is actionable when an employer violates a clear statutory public policy. The Court emphasized that refusing to violate safety regulations designed for public welfare is protected conduct, and the jury verdicts supporting the plaintiffs' claim were backed by material evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment At-Will DoctrinePublic Policy ExceptionMotor Carrier Safety ActDriver Safety RegulationsTruck InspectionWrongful TerminationJury Verdict ReinstatementAppellate ReviewStatutory Violation
References
13
Case No. 01-02-01105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

Marvin Frank Motor Co. v. Harris County

Marvin Frank Motor Company appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Harris County $19,001.22 in damages. Harris County, acting as a subrogee and self-insured workers' compensation carrier, sued Marvin Frank Motor Company to recover benefits paid to its injured employee, Mark Amato, following a vehicle accident. The appellant raised six points of error concerning the admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the damages award. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reviewed the trial court's decisions, including the admission of affidavits and testimony regarding medical expenditures and workers' compensation payments. Ultimately, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirmed the judgment in favor of Harris County.

Subrogation LawAppellate ReviewEvidentiary ChallengesJury Charge ErrorLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyTexas Civil PracticeCollateral Source DoctrineMedical Care CostsLost Wage Damages
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pretzer v. Motor Vehicle Board

This case concerns an appeal by Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. d/b/a Bossier Country (collectively, "Bossier") against sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Board"). The Board had imposed civil penalties for violations of sections 4.06(a)(5) and 4.06(a)(6) of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code. The district court affirmed in part, overruled in part, and reversed and remanded in part the Board's final order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed and rendered in part concerning the Board's power to bar Pretzer from the motor vehicle industry, and remanded the cause for further proceedings regarding the redetermination of civil penalties based on the correct jurisdictional scope of section 4.06(a)(5) for used vehicle sales before June 8, 1995.

Texas Motor Vehicle CodeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCivil PenaltiesFraudulent PracticesDealer LicensingNon-licensee SanctionsUsed Vehicle SalesSubstantial Evidence ReviewEqual Protection
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Scott v. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc.

Paul W. Scott, a part-time body repairman, died from an injury sustained while working on a car for R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an employer-employee relationship, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding Scott was an independent contractor. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. and its carrier appealed the Board's determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that Scott operated as an independent contractor due to factors like lack of supervision, working on his own schedule, providing his own tools, and receiving a fixed payment upon completion. The court highlighted that no single factor is conclusive in determining an employment relationship.

employment relationshipindependent contractorworkers' compensationaccidental deathscope of employmentcontrol testmethod of paymentfurnishing equipmentright to dischargeappellate review
References
4
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 3,197 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