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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wagstaff v. City of Groves

Douglas C. Wagstaff, an employee of Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., was injured in April 1965 while delivering caustic soda to the City of Groves due to a ladder slipping. He initially received workmen's compensation from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the carrier for his employer. Subsequently, Wagstaff and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (as intervenor) sued the City of Groves for negligence. The City of Groves moved for summary judgment, citing Wagstaff's failure to comply with a 60-day written notice provision in its charter, a condition precedent for such suits. Wagstaff argued this provision preempted workmen's compensation law and denied due process. The court, however, found no conflict between the city charter's notice requirement and Article 8307, Section 6a of the Workmen's Compensation Act, concluding that the notice provision was a valid condition. Therefore, the summary judgment in favor of the City of Groves was affirmed due to Wagstaff's non-compliance with the notice requirement.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceWorkmen's CompensationCity CharterNotice ProvisionDue ProcessPreemptionSubrogationThird-Party LiabilityTexas Law
References
11
Case No. 15-24-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas

Defendant-Relator Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC submits a Notice of Supplemental Authority to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. This notice draws the court's attention to a brief filed by the State of Texas on November 20, 2024, in the *In re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.* case. The State's brief supports the constitutionality of qui tam provisions in the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act (THFPA), which deputize private whistleblowers to pursue fraud claims on behalf of the State. Sanofi-Aventis highlights the State's argument that the THFPA preserves the Attorney General's authority and that such cases are effectively brought by and for the State, contending this is relevant to the Court's jurisdiction in the present qui tam action.

Qui TamTexas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention ActMedicaid FraudWhistleblowerAssignee StandingConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersMandamusAppellate ProcedureOriginal Proceeding
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Boring & Tunneling Co. of America

Boring & Tunneling Company of America (Bortunco), a subcontractor, was not paid by Golf Services Group (contractor) for work performed on public water line projects. Bortunco, seeking payment under a bond secured by United Fire & Casualty Company (surety) as per the McGregor Act, sent a notice of claim. The initial notice lacked a notary's signature and seal on the sworn statement of account, though the statement was properly sworn to by Bortunco's agent. United Fire, after receiving the notice, argued that this defect constituted a failure to comply with the McGregor Act's notice provisions and moved for summary judgment. Bortunco contended it had substantially complied with the Act, or that United Fire had waived its right to assert notice defects, supporting its claim with affidavits confirming the notary's omission was a clerical error. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bortunco, awarding it $142,542.75. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the McGregor Act, being remedial, requires only substantial compliance for notice provisions other than deadlines. The court found Bortunco's notice substantially complied as it provided actual notice, contained all essential information, and the defect was a mere clerical error that did not frustrate the statute's purpose.

McGregor ActPayment BondSubstantial ComplianceNotice ProvisionsSworn StatementClerical ErrorSummary JudgmentSuretySubcontractorPublic Works Project
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Shield Corp. v. Lahorgue

This case addresses the enforceability of a contractual indemnity clause under Texas fair notice requirements. American Home Shield (American Home) sought indemnity from Turn-Key Pool & Spa (Turn-Key) following a personal injury suit stemming from a spa heater explosion serviced by Turn-Key. The trial court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment and granted Turn-Key's, ruling the indemnity provision failed both the conspicuousness requirement and the express negligence doctrine. On appeal, American Home contended the provision satisfied fair notice or, alternatively, Turn-Key had actual notice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the indemnity provision was not conspicuous and American Home failed to establish actual knowledge, thus rendering the clause unenforceable.

Contractual IndemnityFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge ExceptionSummary JudgmentTexas LawIndemnity ClauseService Agreement DisputeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 01-08-00487-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2010

United Fire & Casualty Company v. Boring & Tunneling Company of America D/B/A Bortunco

On cross motions for summary judgment in a suit to collect on a McGregor Act payment bond, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, Boring & Tunneling Company of America ("Bortunco"), and denied the motion of appellant, United Fire & Casualty Company ("United Fire"). United Fire appealed, arguing that Bortunco failed to substantially comply with the notice provisions of the McGregor Act due to a missing notary signature and seal on its sworn statement. Bortunco, a subcontractor, contended that its notice substantially complied as the omission was merely a clerical error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the remedial nature of the McGregor Act and that substantial compliance is adequate for notice provisions, especially when actual notice was received. The court concluded that Bortunco's document met the essential requirements of the statute and protected all parties from undue liability.

McGregor ActPayment BondSubstantial ComplianceNotice ProvisionsSuretySubcontractorClerical ErrorSummary JudgmentTexas Government CodeAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. ADJ8202286; ADJ8202308
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

BRADLEY WHEELER vs. COUTS HEATING & COOLING, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Appeals Board dismissed Zurich's unverified Petition for Removal due to procedural defects and its misrepresentation of the record. The Board also removed the cases to itself on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on Zurich for frivolous actions. The Board directed the WCJ to hold a priority hearing to determine if Seabright should be joined as a party and to resolve issues regarding alternative dispute resolution provisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDismissedSanctionsLabor Code Section 3201.7Alternative Dispute ResolutionWCIRBSocial Security EarningsPetition for DismissalOff Calendar
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1992

Hines v. Hash

This case addresses the interpretation and application of the notice requirement under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Dutch Hines sued C.W. Hash, Jr. for damages related to a leaking roof, asserting that notice was sent but unclaimed. Hash argued lack of actual notice as a complete bar. The Texas Supreme Court held that the DTPA's notice provision, intended to encourage pre-suit settlement, mandates abatement of proceedings if notice is not given and timely objected to, rather than outright dismissal. However, the Court found that Hash waived his objection to lack of notice by failing to timely request an abatement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Hines.

DTPANotice RequirementAbatementWaiverConsumer Protection ActStatutory InterpretationTexas LawPleading RequirementsDamages LimitationSettlement Negotiations
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,121 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