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. 03-15-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Elite Auto Body LLC, D/B/A Precision Auto Body Rey R. Hernandez Yesica Diaz And David Damian v. Autocraft Body Works, Inc., Now Known as Wasson Road Ventures, Inc. D/B/A Autocraft Bodywerks

The Appellants, Elite Auto Body LLC, Rey R. Hernandez, Yesica Diaz, and David Damian, are appealing a trial court's order that denied their Motion to Dismiss. This motion was filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) against claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Appellee Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by narrowly construing the TCPA, failing to recognize that their communications regarding business practices and employee recruitment are protected under rights of association and free speech. They also argue that Autocraft failed to provide sufficient 'clear and specific evidence' to establish a prima facie case for its claims, which is a requirement under the TCPA. Consequently, Appellants are seeking a reversal of the trial court's order, dismissal of Autocraft's claims, and an award for their attorneys' fees and expenses.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechAppellate ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denco CS Corporation v. Body Bar, LLC

Body Bar, LLC sued Denco CS Corporation after Denco filed mechanic's liens on property leased by Body Bar, leading the new property owner, Bre Throne Preston Park, LLC, to withhold a $25,000 tenant improvement reimbursement. Body Bar sought declaratory relief, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference, and Denco counterclaimed for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Body Bar, invalidating the liens and finding Denco liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidity of Denco's liens and the dismissal of Denco's claims but reversed the findings of Body Bar's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, and the $25,000 damage award, remanding these issues for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence of damages.

Contract disputeMechanic's lienStatutory lienConstitutional lienTortious interferenceBreach of contractQuantum meruitUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentReal property
References
37
Case No. No. 29-30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson; In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni

This opinion addresses two appeals concerning Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15, specifically whether a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a subsequent injury to a subpart of an enumerated body "member" must be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same member. The Court of Appeals holds that WCL § 15 (7) allows for multiple SLU awards for successive injuries to the same statutory body member, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury, considered by itself, caused an increased loss of use. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Johnson v City of New York, finding that claimant Thomas Johnson failed to provide sufficient evidence that his knee injuries caused a further loss of use of his legs beyond that addressed in a prior SLU award for hip injuries. Conversely, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order in Matter of Liuni v Gander Mountain, remitting the case for further proceedings because claimant Joseph D. Liuni did provide evidence that his later shoulder injury caused a distinct increase in the loss of use of his arm separate from a prior elbow injury. The decision clarifies the application of WCL § 15 (7) regarding successive SLU awards and the burden of proof on claimants.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentOffset RulePrior Disability CompensationEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence
References
33
Case No. 03-08-00226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2008

PODER, Govalle/Johnston Terrace Neighborhood Planning Team, Old West Austin Neighborhood Association and Fix Austin v. City of Austin Mayor of Austin, the Honorable Will Wynn Mayor Pro Tem Betty Dunkerley Council Member Mike Martinez Council Member Jennifer Kim Council Member Lee Leffingwell Council Member Brewster McCracken Council Member Sheryl Cole

Appellants, including PODER and neighborhood planning teams, challenged the City of Austin's decision to relocate its animal shelter. They contended that the City violated Article X of the Austin City Charter by not including the project in its comprehensive plan and that the city council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) regarding its March 8, 2007 meeting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the animal shelter relocation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan, and that the city council's actions regarding budget allocations were properly noticed under TOMA. Therefore, no violation of the city charter or TOMA occurred.

Austin City CharterTexas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)Summary JudgmentAnimal Shelter RelocationComprehensive PlanningNeighborhood PlanningZoning RegulationsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate ReviewLand Use Policy
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Smelting & Refining, Inc. v. Whitefield

Plaintiff, Terry Whitefield, a manual laborer, suffered severe second and third-degree burns while working for General Smelting and Refining in 1976, when he fell into molten lead. He sustained injuries requiring extensive treatment, including hospitalization and reconstructive surgery by Dr. David G. Bowers, Jr. The trial judge found permanent impairment to four scheduled members and assessed a fifty percent disability to the body as a whole, awarding compensation. On appeal, the employer and its insurer, Aetna Life and Casualty, challenged the award, arguing insufficient evidence for the disability findings. The appellate court, referencing prior case law, affirmed the trial judge's decision, stating that lay testimony combined with medical evidence of permanency supported the award, and that multiple injuries to three or more members are not scheduled injuries under T.C.A. § 50-1007(c), allowing for apportionment to the body as a whole.

Workers' CompensationBurn InjuriesPermanent Partial DisabilityScheduled Member InjuriesBody as a Whole DisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyLay TestimonyAppellate ReviewEvidence SufficiencyInjury Apportionment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Members for a Democratic Union v. Local 1101, Communications Workers

Plaintiffs, Members for a Democratic Union (MDU) and individual members, sought mandatory injunctive relief to compel defendants, Local 1101, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and its officers, to publish an advertisement promoting a 'Defense Fund' in the union's newspaper, 'The Generator'. They argued this right under section 101(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. The defendants maintained a policy of not accepting paid advertisements, only publishing free notices for union member benefits, and argued this policy was reasonable and consistently applied. The court distinguished the case from previous rulings, noting that 'The Generator' had not 'opened the forum' to commercial speech or taken a stance on the Defense Fund issue. The court also noted that plaintiffs had other viable communication channels. Ultimately, the court found the defendants' policy to be reasonable and granted their motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motion and dismissing the action.

Labor LawUnion DemocracyFreedom of SpeechLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActSummary JudgmentUnion NewspaperAdvertising PolicyInjunctive ReliefFirst AmendmentInternal Union Affairs
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dotson v. Rice-Chrysler-Plymouth-Dodge, Inc.

This workers' compensation case addresses whether reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) affecting a scheduled member always entitles a claimant to body-as-a-whole compensation. The plaintiff, Ronnie Dotson, sustained a work-related injury to his left arm, leading to RSD. The trial court awarded permanent total disability benefits, interpreting the AMA Guides as mandating body-as-a-whole apportionment for RSD. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that while AMA Guides are tools for anatomical disability rating, they do not supersede statutory compensation classifications. The Court held that RSD compensation is limited to scheduled member benefits if the injury's effects are confined to that member, and body-as-a-whole compensation requires the injury to affect an unscheduled body portion or a specific combination of members. Finding no evidence that Dotson's RSD extended beyond his left arm, the Supreme Court vacated the total disability award and limited his benefits to 200 weeks for the total loss of his arm, remanding the case for consistent proceedings.

Workers' CompensationReflex Sympathetic DystrophyScheduled Member InjuryBody-as-a-Whole CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityAMA GuidesAnatomical ImpairmentVocational DisabilityTennessee Law
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06424 [188 AD3d 1381]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Hluska v. Central New York Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Kevin Hluska, who previously received a 13% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm due to a 2016 shoulder injury, sustained a new work-related injury to his left elbow in 2017. His physician determined this new injury resulted in a 10% SLU of the left arm. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the previous SLU award for the same arm exceeded the current impairment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3), which limits SLU awards for permanent impairments to specific body parts and allows for multiple awards only if for more than one member or parts of more than one member, but the total award for a member is capped.

Schedule Loss of UseSLU AwardLeft Arm InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Division Third DepartmentPermanent ImpairmentPrior AwardSubsequent Injury
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04221 [185 AD3d 1342]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Kleban v. Central NY Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Derek Kleban sustained a right shoulder injury in 2013, for which he received a 28.75% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his right arm. In 2017, he suffered a work-related injury to his right elbow, with his physician finding a 20% SLU of the right elbow. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that claimant was not entitled to a further SLU award for the elbow injury because the prior SLU award for the right arm exceeded the current 20% SLU. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) and prior precedents, which limit SLU awards based on the injured body member and degree of impairment, and allow multiple awards only for loss of use of more than one member or parts thereof, but not when a subsequent injury to a part of a previously awarded larger member results in a lower SLU.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' Compensation BenefitsRight Shoulder InjuryRight Elbow InjuryImpairment RatingPrior AwardSubsequent InjuryAppellate DecisionAffirmationWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. W2003-00825-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2004

David Stupp v. Phillips Auto Body, LLC and First American Insurance Company

This workers' compensation appeal concerns David Stupp, who sustained a neck injury while employed at Phillips Auto Body, LLC. The trial court initially awarded a 25% vocational impairment, but both parties appealed. The defendant challenged the findings regarding permanent injury and the necessity of surgery, while the plaintiff sought a higher disability award. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's decision regarding medical expenses for unauthorized treatment by Dr. Segal and found ample evidence for permanent injury. Ultimately, the panel modified the judgment to award a 45% vocational disability to the body as a whole, concluding that the evidence preponderated in favor of an increased assessment.

Vocational DisabilityPermanent InjuryMedical CausationDisk LesionSpinal SurgeryEmployer LiabilityMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewCredibility of EvidenceAMA Guides
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 2,851 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