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. 05-17-00423-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2018

Linda Dickens and Dickens Law, LLC v. Jason C. Webster, P.C. D/B/A the Webster Law Firm and Jason Webster

This case concerns a dispute between two lawyers, Linda Dickens and Jason C. Webster, over an alleged contingency fee sharing agreement in a wrongful death case. Webster sought a declaration that the agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, while Dickens counterclaimed for tortious interference and breach of contract, arguing Kansas law should apply. The trial court dismissed Dickens’s tortious interference claim under the TCPA and granted summary judgment to Webster. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of Dickens's tortious interference claim, finding sufficient evidence, but affirmed that Texas law applies and the fee sharing agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of written client consent as required by Texas Disciplinary Rules. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the tortious interference claim.

Fee Sharing AgreementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens Participation ActCommercial Speech ExemptionChoice of LawProfessional Conduct RulesContingency FeesLegal EthicsSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2002

Kye Yong Kim v. 40th Associates

This Labor Law action involved an initial jury award of damages to plaintiffs, apportioning fault among a premises owner (40th Associates), managing agent (Jack Resnick & Sons Inc.), tenant (SDT Enterprises Corp.), and general contractor (More Design Interior, Inc.). The Supreme Court modified this judgment. The court vacated the 10% fault apportionment against the owner and managing agent, finding no sufficient evidentiary basis for nonstatutory negligence, and reassigned this fault to the tenant and general contractor. The owner and managing agent were also awarded contractual indemnification from the tenant and common-law indemnification from the general contractor. Furthermore, the court affirmed the refusal to include the plaintiff's nonparty employer on the verdict sheet, citing that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which precluded third-party claims. The jury's damage award was upheld as reasonable.

Labor LawFault ApportionmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationPremises LiabilityGeneral ContractorManaging AgentTenant LiabilityDamages AwardAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06475 [210 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Kreutzberg v. Law Offs. of John Riconda, P.C.

The plaintiff, Thomas Kreutzberg, commenced an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the Law Offices of John Riconda, P.C. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to obtain the required consent from his workers' compensation carrier for the settlement of a no-fault and personal injury claim in 2009, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under CPLR 3211 (a) (5). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the motion, ruling that the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice accrued in 2009 and had expired by the time the action was commenced in 2020. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants successfully established the action was time-barred and the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in opposition.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 3211 (a) (5)Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Appellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTime-barred claimConsent RequirementNo-fault claim settlementPersonal injury action settlement
References
11
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Biscan v. Brown

The provided text is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., in a case regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault system. While agreeing with the majority on some points, Justice Drowota disagrees with the exclusion of Dana Biscan from fault apportionment, despite Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 precluding legal liability for furnishing alcohol. The opinion argues that disallowing fault to an "effectively immune" tortfeasor, like Dana Biscan, contradicts established Tennessee comparative fault jurisprudence, particularly McIntyre v. Balentine, Carroll v. Whitney, and Dotson v. Blake. Justice Drowota contends that the majority's approach undermines the principle of linking liability to fault, blinds the jury to relevant evidence, and imposes liability disproportionately, thereby injecting confusion into settled law.

Comparative FaultTort LawAlcohol LiabilityStatutory ImmunityProximate CauseApportionment of FaultJudicial DissentTennessee LawMcIntyre v. BalentineCarroll v. Whitney
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2008

LMK Psychological Service, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance

The plaintiffs, as assignees of no-fault benefits, sought to recover for health services rendered to beneficiaries of the defendant’s no-fault insurance contracts. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss several causes of action, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 because the injuries occurred during employment. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original decision. The appellate court modified this determination, vacating the dismissal of those causes of action. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination after the Workers’ Compensation Board makes a finding on the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law, emphasizing the Board's primary jurisdiction over such factual issues.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceMedical PaymentsSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemittalInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentJurisdictional Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2012

Sulak v. American Eurocopter Corp.

This order addresses a motion to apply Hawaii law in a case stemming from a helicopter crash in Hawaii that killed pilot William J. Sulak and injured others. Sulak's family, the Sulaks, sued Eurocopter, S.A.S. for negligence, product liability, and failure to warn. The core issue for the court, presided over by Judge Terry R. Means, is to determine whether Texas or Hawaii law governs various aspects of the dispute, applying Texas's choice-of-law rules and the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws. The court ruled that procedural and evidentiary matters, such as the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures, impleader rules, expert testimony requirements, and the necessity of proving a safer alternative design, fall under Texas law as the forum state. However, on substantive issues related to damages, specifically joint-and-several liability and comparative fault, the court concluded that Hawaii law applies, given Hawaii's most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties involved in those specific issues.

Conflict of LawsChoice of LawProduct LiabilityWrongful DeathFederal Diversity JurisdictionRestatement (Second) Conflict of LawsJoint and Several LiabilityComparative NegligenceEvidentiary RulesProcedural Law
References
49
Showing 1-10 of 17,269 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