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. 14-07-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

Latoya Basey v. Davita Inc., D/B/A Total Renal Care, Nelda Boatwright and Fresenius Medical Care Holding Inc., D/B/A Fresenius Medical Care North America D/B/A Northwest Houston Dialysis, and Biomedical Applications of Texas, Inc.

Latoya Basey appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in a disability discrimination and tort case against her former employer, DaVita, Inc., and potential employer, Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Basey claimed DaVita fired her after a work-related back injury and that Fresenius refused to hire her due to her injury and prior discrimination charge. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. The appellate court affirmed, finding Basey failed to provide evidence of disability for her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and lacked evidence of causation for her retaliation claims.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawCausal LinkTexas Court of AppealsADAFailure to AccommodateEmployment Termination
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2008

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sara Care Child Care Center, Inc.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company appealed two summary judgment orders and a final judgment in favor of its insured, Sara Care Child Care Center, Inc., and employee Martha Martinez. The core issue was whether Sara Care's workers' compensation policy was extended due to Texas Mutual's alleged failure to comply with statutory cancellation notice requirements, thus covering Ms. Martinez's injury. The Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel and the trial court affirmed coverage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding judicial review of the Appeals Panel decision, Sara Care's common law claims (breach of contract, promissory estoppel), and the attorney's fee award. However, the court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment on Sara Care's statutory claims (Texas Insurance Code and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act) and the 'knowingly' finding, stating a fact issue remained on whether coverage liability was 'reasonably clear' for these claims.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy NonrenewalStatutory Notice RequirementsSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court DecisionBreach of ContractTexas Insurance Code ViolationsDTPA ViolationsAttorney's FeesJudicial Review
References
30
Case No. 08-08-00192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2010

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Sara Care Child Care Inc. and Martha Martinez

This case involves an appeal by Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) against Sara Care Child Care Center, Inc. and Martha Martinez, challenging summary judgment orders and a final judgment. The core dispute revolves around workers' compensation insurance coverage for an employee's work-related injury, which TMI denied based on policy expiration. The appeals panel and trial court found TMI liable due to its failure to comply with Texas Labor Code Section 406.008 notice requirements for policy cancellation or nonrenewal, extending Sara Care's coverage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding TMI's judicial review petition and its liability for common law claims and attorney's fees. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment concerning Sara Care's statutory claims under the Texas Insurance Code and the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as a fact issue remained regarding whether TMI's coverage liability was "reasonably clear," impacting the "knowingly" finding for additional damages.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy NonrenewalSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelAttorney's FeesJudicial Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2006

In re Ian H.

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating a respondent's children neglected. The respondent, a substitute day-care worker, was accused of sexually abusing female children attending a day-care center operated by his wife. Petitioner initiated a neglect proceeding, alleging derivative neglect of the respondent's twin sons based on his inappropriate conduct with other children. The Family Court found that the respondent neglected three children by sexually abusing them, demonstrating a fundamental defect in parenting that derivatively neglected his own children. The Appellate Division affirmed this finding, concluding that out-of-court statements of the abused children were properly admitted and sufficiently corroborated, and the Family Court appropriately exercised its discretion in not compelling a child's testimony.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectSexual AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Out-of-court StatementsCorroborationHearsay ExceptionJudicial DiscretionParental JudgmentChild Testimony
References
13
Case No. 04-06-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2008

Sylvia Casas, Ind. Substantively Consolidated Bankruptcy Estates of Fountain View, Inc. as Successor to Summit Care Corporation, Summit Care Texas, L.P. D/B/A Comanche Trail Nursing Center and Summit Care Management Texas and Robert Gundling, Ind. v. Rosamarie Paradez, as the Administrator and Heir at Law of the Estate of Tranquilino Mendoza

This case involves a medical malpractice survival action initiated by Rosamarie Paradez, daughter of the deceased Tranquilino Mendoza, against Sylvia Casas, Robert Gundling, and the consolidated bankruptcy estates of Fountain View, Inc. (successor to Summit Care Corp. and Summit Care Texas, L.P., operators of Comanche Trail Nursing Center). Mendoza, an 81-year-old nursing home resident, suffered severe injuries after being beaten by a violent roommate, allegedly due to the appellants' negligence. The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the denial of new trial motions, sufficiency of damages, excessive awards, and the application of damages caps. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the damages awarded for pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment, and finding no error in the application of the damages cap or the finding of negligence against Gundling.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePersonal InjurySurvival ActionAppellate ReviewJury ArgumentDamages CapFactual SufficiencyMental AnguishPhysical Impairment
References
35
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05756 [175 AD3d 134]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2019

Matter of People Care Inc. v. City of New York Human Resources Admin.

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which annulled the Human Resources Administration's (HRA) demand to recoup approximately $7 million in Health Care Reform Act (HCRA) funds from People Care Incorporated. The core issue was whether HRA possessed the authority to audit and recover these HCRA funds, established as a distinct Medicaid reimbursement program for worker recruitment and retention, from personal care service providers. The Court found that neither Public Health Law § 2807-v (1) (bb) nor the Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Health (DOH) and HRA delegated such auditing and recoupment powers to HRA. It rejected HRA's arguments that HCRA funds were merely a subset of general Medicaid funds subject to its existing contractual audit authority, or that DOH's actions constituted ratification of HRA's authority. Consequently, the Court upheld the injunction preventing HRA from recouping the disputed HCRA funds from People Care.

Administrative LawMedicaid ReimbursementAuditing AuthorityStatutory ConstructionInter-agency AgreementsHealthcare Reform ActPersonal Care ServicesGovernment ContractsCPLR Article 78Delegation of Power
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06564
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Raivyn BB. (Courtney BB.)

This case concerns appeals from Family Court orders adjudicating Raivyn BB. a neglected child due to alleged parental drug use by mother Courtney BB. and father Kip AA. The child tested positive for methamphetamines after birth, prompting neglect petitions. The Appellate Division reversed the neglect findings against both parents. The court found that the evidence did not establish a direct causal link between the mother's methamphetamine use and the child's impairment, noting potential withdrawal symptoms from prescribed Subutex. Furthermore, the father's conduct, including hostility or refusal to sign a birth certificate, was not deemed to constitute neglect, and no evidence showed his knowledge of the mother's drug use. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

Neglected ChildParental Drug UseChild ToxicologyMethamphetamineSubutexFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewCausative ConnectionImpairment of ChildMinimum Degree of Care
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Victoria XX.

This case involves appeals from two Family Court orders concerning child neglect proceedings. The petitioner, Tompkins County Department of Social Services, initiated proceedings against the respondents, an aunt and uncle, who were custodians of a niece and nephew. Following allegations of physical abuse and inappropriate disciplinary methods used by the uncle, the Family Court found neglect only as to the nephew, due to severe punishments and the respondents' lack of insight into the nephew's special needs, including posttraumatic stress and pervasive development disorders. The nephew was subsequently removed from the respondents' care and placed in the custody of Tompkins DSS. On appeal, the Court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no error in the removal without a hearing as it was part of original permanent neglect proceedings, and sufficient evidence supported the neglect finding and the decision not to return the nephew to the uncle's care. The issue regarding the niece's return was deemed moot.

Child neglectFamily Court ActAppealSchuyler CountyTompkins CountyPhysical abuseDisciplineSpecial needs childPosttraumatic stress disorderPervasive development disorder
References
17
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 07675
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2014

Matter of Yu F. (Fen W.)

This case involves a child neglect proceeding where the mother, Fen W., appealed from a Family Court order finding her to have neglected her child, Yu F. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the appeal, limiting its scope to the finding of neglect, as the dispositional order had expired and was made upon the mother's default. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding that the petitioner, Administration for Children's Services, proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child due to her untreated mental illness. Testimony from a psychiatrist and a hospital social worker indicated the mother's inability to provide adequate supervision and guardianship, placing the child in imminent danger. The evidence showed the mother refused to provide care plans for the child during her hospitalization and relied on the nine-year-old child for care.

Child NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Untreated Mental IllnessParental SupervisionGuardianshipAppellate ReviewDefault JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceImminent DangerPsychosis Disorder
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,808 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