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. 04-13-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2014

Tarrant County Democratic Party, Steve Maxwell, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Tarrant County Democratic Party, Texas Democratic Party And Gilberto Hinojosa, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Texas Democratic Party v. John Steen, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of Texas

This appeal concerns the reimbursement of attorney's fees incurred by the Tarrant County Democratic Party (TCDP), Texas Democratic Party (TDP), and their chairs (Appellants) from the Texas Secretary of State (Appellee). The fees were for defending an election contest lawsuit (the Brimer suit) challenging Wendy Davis’s eligibility as a Democratic candidate for State Senate District 10. The Secretary of State denied reimbursement, arguing the fees were unrelated to the primary election. The appellate court held that Election Code section 173.086(a) waives sovereign immunity and that the Brimer suit fees were

Election LawAttorney's FeesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPrimary ElectionElection ContestTexas Election CodeReimbursement ClaimDeclaratory Judgment ActAppellate Procedure
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 1997

Marte v. St. John's University

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. 02A01-9804-CV-00117
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1998

Jean Dotson v. Amanda Blake

Jean Carolyn Dotson was injured in an automobile accident involving Amanda Blake, Dan Blake, and the Estate of Elvis C. Maddox, Sr. Martin Manor Associates (MMA) was later added as a defendant, being the party that designed and built the roadway. Dotson alleged the Martin Manor apartment complex access road was improperly located, creating a hazard. MMA asserted that Hnedek, Bobo, Gooch and Associates (Architect) and S. Webster Haining & Company (Contractor) were responsible. However, claims against the Architect and Contractor were barred by a statute of repose. The trial court denied MMA's motion to attribute fault to these non-parties and refused certain jury instructions. The jury found 51% fault to MMA and 49% to the City of Martin, assigning zero fault to the drivers involved in the collision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that fault may not be attributed to non-parties immune from suit pursuant to a statute of repose.

Automobile accidentComparative negligenceStatute of reposeNon-party fault attributionJury instructionsApportionment of faultArchitectural design liabilityConstruction liabilityRoadway design defectDuty of landowner
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Nelson

Plaintiff sued defendants, their insureds, to recoup first-party no-fault benefits. Both parties agreed there were no triable issues of fact, disputing only the timeliness of the action commenced on November 7, 1983. Plaintiff argued accrual on April 28, 1981, upon settlement of a Court of Claims action, while defendants claimed accrual on September 23, 1980, when the Court of Claims judgment was entered. Special Term initially applied a six-year limitation period (CPLR 213 [1]) but alternatively found the action timely under a three-year period (CPLR 214 [2]). The appellate court held the appropriate period of limitation is three years (CPLR 214 [2]) for actions upon a liability imposed by statute, such as enforcing a lien under Insurance Law § 5104 [b]. The court affirmed Special Term's alternative finding that the cause of action did not accrue until the underlying Court of Claims action was finally settled, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment.

No-fault insuranceStatute of limitationsLien enforcementCause of action accrualSummary judgmentAppellate procedureInsurance LawCPLRCourt of ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
6
Case No. Shelby Law No. 68714-2; C.A. No. 02A01-9707-CV-00162
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1998

James Carroll v. Carolyn Whitney

This medical malpractice case concerns the wrongful death of a minor, Jessieca Renee Carroll, brought by her parents, James and Forestine Carroll, against Carolyn Whitney, M.D., Grover W. Barnes, M.D., P.C., and Lebonheur Children’s Medical Center, Inc. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment on a jury verdict, challenging the apportionment of comparative fault to non-party resident physicians who were immune from tort suit under state law. The appellate court examined the applicability of Ridings v. Ralph M. Parson’s Co. and Snyder v. Ltg Lufttechnische GmbH, distinguishing between proximate cause and cause in fact in the context of immune parties. The court ultimately concluded that the trial court erred by instructing the jury to assess proximate or legal fault to immune non-parties. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

medical malpracticewrongful deathcomparative faultsovereign immunitystate employeesjury instructionsproximate causecause in factappellate reviewTennessee law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carroll v. Whitney

James and Forestine Carroll brought a medical malpractice suit after their infant daughter, Jessica, died of sepsis and pneumonia. The original defendants included LeBonheur Children’s Medical Center, Dr. Carolyn Whitney, and Dr. Grover W. Barnes. Resident physicians, Dr. Reggie Lyell and Dr. Azra Sehic, were initially dismissed due to state employee immunity. The trial court allowed the jury to apportion fault to these immune non-parties, with Dr. Lyell receiving 70% and Dr. Sehic 30%, while the named defendants received 0%. The Court of Appeals reversed this, but the Supreme Court, in this opinion, reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court held that in negligence actions, a jury may generally apportion fault to immune non-parties to promote fairness by aligning fault with liability, thereby preventing the implicit revival of joint and several liability, distinguishing this from workers' compensation cases.

Medical MalpracticeComparative FaultImmune Non-PartiesJury VerdictSepsis and PneumoniaResident Physicians NegligenceState ImmunityJoint and Several Liability AbolitionWorkers' Compensation ExceptionAffirmative Defense
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garden State Anesthesia Associates, PA v. Progressive Casualty Insurance

Garden State Anesthesia Associates (GSAA) sued Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for unpaid first-party no-fault benefits after providing services to Angela Gowan-Walker. Progressive delayed payment, citing the need for Gowan-Walker's examination under oath (EUO) and extensive medical and workers' compensation records. Although Gowan-Walker completed her EUO, Progressive continued to issue delay letters, requesting information primarily from third parties and Gowan-Walker's attorney, without directly contacting GSAA for verification. The court denied Progressive's motion for summary judgment, ruling that an insurer cannot indefinitely toll the 30-day payment period by requesting verification unrelated to the specific provider's claim or by failing to request verification directly from the provider.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentInsurance LawVerification RequestDelay LetterEUOMedical RecordsInsurance ClaimsTimelinessTolling
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Jose Madeira at a construction site. The plaintiff sued Affordable Housing, the site owner, and Mountain Developers, the general contractor, under New York Labor Law § 240(1) (Scaffold Law). A jury in Phase I found the defendants liable and awarded Jose Madeira $638,671.63. In Phase II, the jury determined that the third-party defendant, Cleidson Silva d/b/a C & L Construction (plaintiff's employer), was 82% liable for the accident, while Mountain and Affordable were each 9% liable based on an indemnification agreement. The court addresses post-trial motions from both third-party defendants (Silva) for a new trial and third-party plaintiffs (Affordable and Mountain) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which are denied. Key issues included the plaintiff's right to lost earnings as an undocumented worker, the jury's apportionment of fault, and the preclusion of proof regarding lack of insurance.

Scaffold LawLabor Law § 240(1)Indemnification AgreementThird-Party ActionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictNew Trial MotionUndocumented Worker RightsLost EarningsImmigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Apportionment of Fault
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bumgardner v. Vonk

This is a diversity action concerning an automobile accident in Sevier County, Tennessee, presided over by District Judge Jarvis. Plaintiff Donald Bumgardner's vehicle was rear-ended by defendant Edward A. Vonk on June 16, 1996, leading to alleged substantial damage and personal injuries. Plaintiffs filed suit on June 9, 1997. Defendant Vonk asserted in his answer that Sevier County shared fault due to roadway construction and signage issues, despite the county's general immunity from suit under T.C.A. § 29-20-201, and the expiration of the 12-month statute of limitations for claims against governmental entities. The court considered Tennessee's comparative fault principles, particularly T.C.A. § 20-1-119, which provides a 90-day grace period for joining non-parties, but noted its inapplicability to governmental entities like Sevier County. Citing *Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Company* and *McIntyre v. Balentine*, the court emphasized that fault can only be attributed to parties against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action. As plaintiffs are precluded from suing Sevier County due to immunity and statute of limitations, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, prohibiting the defendant from attributing fault to Sevier County.

Automobile AccidentComparative FaultGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsPartial Summary JudgmentTennessee LawDiversity JurisdictionTort Liability ActNon-party FaultRoadway Defect
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 8,965 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