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-CV-247-PRM
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2010

United States Ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Fresenius Medical Care North America

Relator Rebecca Gonzalez, a former Fresenius employee, brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Fresenius Medical Care North America, BioMedical Applications of Texas, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., Larry Ramirez, and Alfonso Chavez. Gonzalez alleged that Fresenius and Chavez submitted false or fraudulent claims to Medicare by using unlicensed medical assistants and engaging in an illegal referral scheme violating anti-kickback and Stark laws. She also claimed retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing most of Gonzalez's claims against Fresenius and some against Chavez due to insufficient evidence regarding express or implied certifications of compliance, lack of criminal intent, or the unviability of certain legal theories in the Fifth Circuit. However, claims against Chavez regarding factual falsity under FCA (a)(1) and related (a)(2) and (a)(3) liability were allowed to proceed to a jury.

False Claims ActQui TamRetaliationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMedicare FraudAnti-Kickback ActStark LawJudgment as a Matter of LawFifth CircuitMedical Malpractice
References
36
Case No. 02-20-00225-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2021

Steven Hernandez, Francisco Azuero, and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America v. Combined Insurance Company of America

Individual Appellants Steven Hernandez and Francisco Azuero, along with Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America, appealed a temporary injunction order granted to Combined Insurance Company of America. Combined alleged that Hernandez and Azuero, former district sales managers, violated non-solicitation and confidentiality covenants in their employment agreements by soliciting Combined's employees and policyholders after joining Family Heritage. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings that the covenants were reasonable, that Individual Appellants probably solicited Combined's policyholders and agents, and that Combined would suffer imminent and irreparable injury. However, the court reversed and remanded the injunction's form for lacking reasonable detail regarding identified parties and geographic scope. Crucially, the court sustained Family Heritage's appeal, vacating and dissolving the injunction against it, finding no evidence of tortious interference or an agency relationship to support vicarious liability for Individual Appellants' acts.

Temporary InjunctionNoncompete CovenantNonsolicitation AgreementConfidential InformationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorVicarious LiabilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewContract Breach
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Case No. 04-22-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2024

Harbor America Central, Inc. v. Vielka Armand

This case concerns a permissive appeal addressing whether Chapter 91 of the Texas Labor Code, pertaining to Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs), supersedes Chapter 21, which provides protections against employment discrimination. Appellant Harbor America Central, Inc., a PEO, was sued by Appellee Vielka Armand for discriminatory acts under Chapter 21. The trial court initially granted Armand's partial summary judgment, determining Harbor was her employer. On appeal, the court affirmed that a PEO under Chapter 91 can be an employer under Chapter 21, rejecting the supersession argument. However, applying a hybrid economic realities/common-law control test, the court found that while Harbor met the statutory definition of an employer, the existence of an employment relationship between Harbor and Armand was not conclusively established as a matter of law, necessitating a factual determination. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Professional Employer OrganizationTexas Labor Code Chapter 91Texas Labor Code Chapter 21Employment DiscriminationCo-employmentStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityEconomic Realities Test
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. And Audi of America, Inc. v. John Walker III, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board The Honorable Michael J. O'Malley, the Honorable Penny A. Wilkov, in Their Official Capacities as Administrative Law Judges for the State Office

This case involves an appeal filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc. (Appellants) against John Walker III, Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and Administrative Law Judges Michael J. O'Malley and Penny A. Wilkov (Appellees). Appellants sought injunctive relief in district court to prevent Appellees from proceeding with an allegedly ultra vires remand of an administrative contested case after a Proposal for Decision (PFD) had been issued. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants argue that Appellees' actions, including ordering the remand and reopening evidence, exceeded their statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and Texas Occupations Code, making governmental immunity inapplicable and exhaustion of remedies unnecessary.

Administrative LawUltra Vires ActsGovernmental ImmunityExhaustion of RemediesJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityState Office of Administrative HearingsRemandContested CasesStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2012

Delaney v. Bank of America Corp.

John Delaney sued Bank of America (BoA) alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and breach of an oral contract related to his internal transfer. Delaney claimed his termination was age-discriminatory and that BoA reneged on a promise regarding account assignments and compensation. BoA moved for summary judgment, asserting Delaney failed to show a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the alleged oral contract was too vague, superseded by discretionary bonus policies, and that Delaney was an at-will employee. The court found insufficient admissible evidence for age discrimination, supporting BoA's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (reduction in force based on performance). Additionally, the court ruled the oral agreement lacked definiteness and was overridden by BoA's discretionary bonus plan, and as an at-will employee, Delaney's termination was permissible. Consequently, the court granted BoA's motion for summary judgment on both claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceAt-Will EmploymentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkBut-For CausationOral AgreementDiscretionary Bonus
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boring & Tunneling Co. of America, Inc. v. Salazar

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the defendants (relators) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The relators, Boring & Tunneling Company of America, Inc. and Lee Arthur Evans, sought to prevent the discovery of certain documents, claiming they were protected by investigative and attorney-client privileges. The documents included an attorney's letter and file memo, and statements from Lee Arthur Evans and his son, Keith Evans, related to a fatal car accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge Felix Salazar, initially granted a protective order but later rescinded it, ordering the production of the disputed documents. On review, the appellate court determined that the relators failed to prove the applicability of investigative privileges because they did not provide objective evidence that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. However, the court found that the attorney-client privilege applied to the attorney's letter to the claims adjuster, but not to the attorney's file memo (due to waiver) or Lee Arthur Evans' statement (due to conflicting evidence regarding the attorney-client relationship at the time). Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted in part, ordering the trial court to rescind its production order only for the attorney's letter to the adjuster, and denied for the other documents.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeInvestigative PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegePrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionAnticipation of LitigationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident
References
25
Case No. ADJ6755820, ADJ7231247, ADJ6777953
Regular

NORMA HERNANDEZ vs. KRAGEN AUTO PARTS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Norma Hernandez against Kragen Auto Parts and its insurer, Zurich North America. The applicant, Hernandez, subsequently withdrew the petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed the petition. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantKragen Auto PartsZurich North America Insurance CompanyLong Beach District OfficeOrder Dismissing PetitionWithdrawn Petition
References
0
Case No. 10-11-00142-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2013

Dan Daniels v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America

Dan Daniels, an elevator installer for ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, sued Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, his former employer's workers' compensation carrier, after an adverse administrative decision by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). Daniels sought judicial review regarding the calculation of his Average Weekly Wage (AWW) and his post-injury earnings, specifically contesting the exclusion of certain payments made by ThyssenKrupp to his union for "health and other benefits" from his pre-injury AWW, and the valuation of a vehicle provided by the State of Missouri as part of his post-injury earnings. The trial court granted summary judgment for Indemnity and denied Daniels's motion for partial summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the payments to the union were not includable in AWW and that Daniels's post-injury pecuniary and nonpecuniary wages were not less than 80% of his pre-injury AWW, thus disentitling him to Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs).

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income BenefitsAverage Weekly WageNonpecuniary WagesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeAdministrative DecisionEmployer PaymentsPost-Injury Earnings
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08809
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2017

Dereveneaux v. Hyundai Motor America

Keith Dereveneaux, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants Hyundai Motor America, Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, and Trade Show Specialists Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal against Hyundai Motor America because the plaintiff failed to oppose the initial motion for relief. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Trade Show Specialists Corp., concluding that the plaintiff was a special employee, which barred his personal injury claim under Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, summary judgment was affirmed for Trade Show Fabrications, Inc., and Innocean Worldwide Americas, LLC, regarding Labor Law § 200 and § 241 (6) claims, as they demonstrated no control over the work site and the cited Industrial Code provisions were inapplicable. The plaintiff's opposition failed to raise any triable issues of fact.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilityWorksite ControlIndustrial CodeAppellate ProcedureAggrieved Party
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,857 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